Blockchain-based governance implications for ecologically sustainable supply chain management

Abstract

Purpose

The authors explore the impact of an emerging technology, blockchain technology, on diverse governance mechanisms and sustainable supply chain practices and how its relationships with the linkage of these elements.

Design/methodology/approach

The methodology incorporates a literature review and a qualitative empirical analysis of the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) standards. Expert opinions from various firms and organizations within the electronics sector are assessed. Through a thematic analysis, the relationships are identified and examined.

Findings

Data immutability, transparency and traceability capabilities of blockchain technology enhance the relationship between environmental standards and ecological supply chain sustainability practices. Although immature, the blockchain can influence the governance of supply chain sustainability practices. Immaturity of technology, lack of expertise, sharing information and trust have delayed adoption.

Originality/value

There is limited empirical evidence regarding blockchain's impact on governance mechanisms, specifically hybrid public-private mechanisms and sustainable supply chain practices. The study further evaluates how particular blockchain features may exert varying influences on these aspects and different sustainable supply chain traits. As an exploratory study, it proposes new areas for further research, including how blockchain's traceability function can improve sustainability standard adoption. Additionally, there is a call for integrating blockchain with technologies like IoT and sensors which may influence supply chain governance mechanisms, standards and sustainability practices.

Citation

Jimenez-Castillo, L., Sarkis, J., Saberi, S. and Yao, T. (2024), "Blockchain-based governance implications for ecologically sustainable supply chain management", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 76-99. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-02-2022-0055

1. Introduction

Successful enterprises rely on efficient and effective information sharing by integrating and accommodating customers, business partners and other constituents who value sustainability (Zhou and Benton, 2007). The complex global supply chain (SC) requires new technologies to manage the cost, time and risk associated with SC sustainability processes. Blockchain technology – blockchain from here on – can enhance firm capabilities for efficiently controlling, provisioning and managing information, product and financial flows (El-Masri and Hussain, 2021; Zhu et al., 2022).

Integrating organizational sustainability practices requires clear direction and strategic implementation of a robust governance structure (Gimenez and Sierra, 2013). Governance structures and mechanisms can incorporate norms that become established as authoritative guidelines for managing organizational behavior (Powell and DiMaggio, 2012). An effective governance structure is necessary to implement sustainability strategies and practices within an organization and its SC. Sustainable supply chain (SSC) governance mechanisms may include public, private and hybrid mechanisms. These governance mechanisms set guidelines for specific norms and practices. These guidelines support sustainable supply chain practices to be compliant with governance standards or support regulations that may be adopted, including upstream and downstream flow management, waste management and reverse logistics (see, e.g. Kouhizadeh and Sarkis, 2018).

As an example for our study, we use the electronics supply chain and sustainability concerns. There are many sustainability issues throughout the electronics supply chain that are representative of many durable product supply chains. Materials extraction and the use of rare earth elements for electronics products can cause deleterious impacts on biodiversity, land pollution and carbon emissions (Haque et al., 2014). Thus, ecological designs – design for the environment – should be part of organizational processes to manage SSC (Li et al., 2015). At the end-of-life (downstream in the supply chain), electronic companies also produce 50 million tons of e-waste every year [1]–[6] which is likely to double by 2050 [2]. Toxic compounds in electronics prompt governments, organizations and industries to address e-waste toxicity. However, tracking the source and flow of these substances is difficult given the thousands of organizations in the global electronics components and materials SCs. SSC governance mechanisms must resolve low transparency, information asymmetry and lack of ability to access information across SCs (Tachizawa and Wong, 2015).

Public and private governance mechanisms exist for the electronics supply chain. For example, public governance mechanisms that have SSC practices adoption by electronics supply chains include the Waste of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) (Bahers and Kim, 2018) and Restriction of Use of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) (Yu et al., 2006) regulations. Life cycle analysis and ISO 14000 are private governance standards that have implications for SSC practices adoption in electronic industries and organizations (Fu et al., 2020).

WEEE regulatory standards for product takeback and stewardship are ecological sustainability concerns in the downstream SC. RoHS requirements focus on eliminating certain hazardous substances in products and material flows, which are ecological sustainability concerns in the upstream SC. WEEE and RoHS represent public governance mechanisms that comply with mandatory regulatory policies set by legislation. Other governance mechanisms may include normative pressures based on community norms or voluntary regulatory policies, which are private governance mechanisms. For instance, the US Energy Program supports voluntary governmental standards. ISO 14000 certification and life cycle analysis are private organizational environmental management systems that can be viewed as voluntary private governance mechanisms that influence SSC practices.

The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) incorporates public and private governance mechanisms to influence the adoption of SSC practices (Chou and Chou, 2012). EPEAT may be viewed as a hybrid governance mechanism, where specific governmental – public – standards are included alongside private standards. These hybrid governance standards can support SSC. They may not achieve their full potential for transforming practices due to the lack of regulation3F [3], poor technical foundation and high costs of implementation4F [4]. Global SC complexity, including low SC visibility, power-control dilution across multiple tiers and sustainability expectations divergence across regions, increases barriers to improving sustainability performance (Wu and Pullman, 2015). SSC governance becomes even more difficult and complex from SC globalization (Bush et al., 2015). Current isolated and centralized information technologies from different supply chain stages hinder collecting, tracking, and locating the right or timely information from global locations. Information exchange, globally and across SCs, must be credible and transparent to help achieve sustainability goals and effective governance (Gereffi and Lee, 2016; Kouhizadeh et al., 2021). This credibility provides organizations and their SCs the legitimacy to operate or sell products. Previous literature reveals the linkage between SC governance and transparency that affects the legitimacy, sustainability and performance of SCs, and especially global or complex SCs (Egels-Zandén et al., 2015; Ghode et al., 2020; Mol, 2015).

Consequently, achieving compliance with sustainability standards among thousands of suppliers, local and global, seems unattainable unless novel information technology is adopted. With its inherent transparency features, blockchain can be a promising candidate to address this challenge. A study from IBM showed that many electronic industries are willing to invest in blockchain to address complexity in their SCs9 F [5]. The practical and research question is whether blockchain can play a role in adopting SSC practices under hybrid governance mechanisms. Blockchains can support governance mechanisms to improve SSC and build organizational SC legitimacy (Sulkowski, 2018). Most studies evaluating direct and moderating effect of blockchain characteristics on governance mechanisms and SSC practices are relatively conceptual with minimal empirical evidence (Esmaeilian et al., 2020; Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Kouhizadeh and Sarkis, 2018). To our knowledge, no study investigates how emergent information technologies such as blockchain improve SSC governance. Hence, we are interested in qualitatively investigating how blockchain can influence SSC performance governance mechanisms at the corporate level and issues during its implementation utilizing qualitative empirical information from experts with both practical and scholarly insight.

We investigate the relationship between governance mechanisms to support electronics SSC practices. The focus is EPEAT standards as a hybrid governance mechanisms for implementing SC sustainability practices for electronic devices. A hybrid governance mechanism case is used in our study because we can capture concerns and issues from both public and private standards and regulations. Blockchain capabilities studies in SC are also relatively limited (Kouhizadeh et al., 2021). We explore how blockchain capabilities contribute to managing the relationships between governance mechanisms and SSC practices. Other than investigating the relationships between the governance mechanism and the adoption of SSC practices, it is useful to explore how blockchain affects governance relationships and what role it plays.

Blockchain contributes at least five major capabilities (Saberi et al., 2019) for organizations to manage the relationships between governance mechanisms and SSC practices. We explore how these capabilities contribute to the relationship between governance mechanisms and SSCs. The following research questions are proposed for this study: (RQ1) Which blockchain features can help manage standards and governance mechanisms and adoption of SSC practices? (RQ2) How well do blockchain characteristics and capabilities – including decentralization, security, transparency, traceability and smart contracts – influence the relationship between governance mechanism standards and SSC practices adoption?

Given the relative novelty of and increasing investments in blockchain, the research literature has been quiet on the relationships between governance mechanisms, sustainability practices and blockchain while organizations, regulators and service providers seek answers to these questions. We contribute to the literature by conducting an exploratory study that aims to fill this gap and includes the following:

1. Examine the influence of blockchain technology on the execution of governance mechanisms.

2. Explore the effects of blockchain technology on sustainable supply chain practices within the electronics industry.

3. Examine the potential of blockchain technology as a mediator in the relationship between the implementation of governance mechanisms and the execution of sustainable supply chain practices.

4. Determine promising and effective blockchain characteristics and their role in governing SSCs from both upstream and downstream perspectives.

5. Provide direction for future research based on research propositions developed through this exploratory research study.

The remainder of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of governance mechanisms for SSC practices. The research methodology is presented in Section 3. The results and discussions appear in Section 4. Section 5 includes several propositions derived from the literature and case study analysis with implications. Section 6 concludes the paper by summarizing study limitations and future research potential.

2. Literature review

This study has a foundation in two main research streams. The first one is SSC standards and the management and governance of these standards. The second one focuses on blockchain and its characteristics to aid standards supporting SSCs.

2.1 Sustainable supply chain governance mechanisms

Sustainability has been defined as the development that meets the present demands without compromising the capability of future generations to meet their demands (Nasir et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2021). Firms are being held accountable for sustainability outcomes, thus integrating environmental, social and economic dimensions into their SCs (Hartmann and Moeller, 2014). SSC management typically includes monitoring, auditing and maintaining interorganizational and stakeholder relationships while balancing of environmental, social and economic considerations (Ahi and Searcy, 2013). Managing sustainability has continuously been a challenge in global SCs (Koberg and Longoni, 2019; Wu and Pullman, 2015).

Sustainability-oriented governance mechanisms are introduced through both public and private channels (Formentini and Taticchi, 2016). Mandatory public governance mechanisms, including RoHS and WEEE in Europe, are associated with meeting required legislated regulatory policies. These public governance mechanisms are norms and standards associated with meeting required legislated regulatory policies which go beyond the community, industry and social norms. Institutional theory stipulates that these types of coercive isomorphic pressures result in strategic organizational changes (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Thus, public governance may go beyond social norms and include coercive mechanisms through penalties, fines, or taxes. Private governance mechanisms are typically less coercive with more normative or mimetic isomorphic pressures – using the terminology of institutional theory. The private governance mechanisms are normative pressures based on community norms or voluntary regulatory policies such as Energy Star. Private governance may include compliance auditing developed by lead firms through corporate self-regulation, multi-stakeholder platforms or certification. These auditing efforts may improve legitimate standing of organizations (Bowen, 2019; Fernando and Lawrence, 2014). One voluntary standard is ISO 14000, a private industry initiative for governing internal organizational environmental practices (Shou et al., 2018). Sustainability practices occur in upstream, internal and downstream SCs (Hervani et al., 2005). The appropriate SC management practices need to be established to ensure compliance with sustainability governance standards, norms and regulations. The adoption of sustainable supply chain practices is influenced by both public and private governance mechanisms, which together form a hybrid governance system. This hybrid governance encapsulates a blend of public and private governance elements that are mutually dependent, showcasing an intricate interplay between public standards, private regulations and legal orders.

2.2 Governance practices in electronics industries and implementation issues

The electronics industry greatly contributes to environmental burden and greenhouse gas emissions generated by IT usage (Ursacescu et al., 2019). Computers have over 1000 components, many have high toxic content (Herat, 2007). There is demand for firms to creating a more sustainable environment by IT product environmental impact reduction (Anitha, 2018).

Electronic waste is growing at an annual rate of 1–5% (Islam and Huda, 2019). The e-waste concern – with approximately 40 million metric tons annually – has prompted strict environmental and sustainability regulations (Jermsittiparsert et al., 2019). US regulations are modeled after EU e-waste regulations such as the E-Steward Standard and EPEAT (Luther, 2010). EPEAT provides an environmental assessment tool for IT (Mihai et al., 2019). EPEAT is an environmental sustainability standard focusing on the overall product lifecycle, using details of product materials, energy conservation and packaging (Moren, 2012).

It is difficult for companies to meet standards without compromising their own interests. For example, in 2012, Apple abandoned the EPEAT Green Standard to protect its new designs. Customers including Ford, HSBC, Kaiser and the US government required that 95% of the electronics they purchase to be EPEAT certified – pressuring Apple to rejoin EPEAT (Weintraub, 2012). In some instances, certifications or organizational standards such as EPEAT may simply be requirements for winning government contracts, thus enhancing the possibility of greenwashing (Swift et al., 2019). These are examples where the relationship between standards adoption and actual SSC performance is weakened. We mention these possibilities because standards may not always lead to improved SSC performance10 F [6].

Another example of a weaker adoption of governance mechanisms occurs when companies face significant challenges to adopt WEEE and RoHS in their SCs. These regulatory standards increase risk of sourcing standard-compliant materials at a competitive price difficulties and the risk of product quality consistency (Yu et al., 2006).

Another example of ineffective EPEAT governance mechanism implementation occurs in product end-of-life activities. Lack of traceability in supplier materials makes it difficult for organizations to meet EPEAT standards (Lee et al., 2012). For example, HP's materials management strategy is to adopt EPEAT standards as a decision-making tool for driving consumer demands. However, HP has faced difficulty in collecting material declaration data for EPEAT since the suppliers of HP cannot provide the exact material and substance composition information of their products (Wu, 2018).

There are numerous types of standards that influence various stages of SC activities in the electronics and IT industry. These standards are meant to improve SSC performance, but improvement may not always occur. The question we consider is whether these standards and a SSC outcome can be enhanced through blockchain enabling characteristics.

2.3 Blockchain enabled sustainable supply chains

Blockchain has been heralded as a major disruptive technology – even rivaling the internet (Hernandez, 2017; Mougayar, 2016). Blockchain is a system of recording information with a decentralized, distributed and secure database. It stores data in connected blocks with an immutable cryptographic signature called a hash. Blockchain is managed by multiple participants rather than having a centralized controller. Blockchain promises distributed and decentralized databases, security and data immutability, information transparency, and traceability (Cong and He, 2019; Sharma et al., 2021). The integration of these characteristics differentiates blockchain from other technologies. Accordingly, blockchain can have profound implications for governance mechanisms of SSCs across multiple industries.

A number of possibilities exist for blockchain enabled SSCs (El-Masri and Hussain, 2021; Grover et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2021; Yadav and Singh, 2021). For example, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been widely used as a governance mechanism tool for managing product environmental impacts across industrial SCs (Corcelli et al., 2019; Lake et al., 2015). Standard LCA systems embed quantitative data – such as raw material input, energy consumption, product output and environmental releases (Rebitzer et al., 2004). LCA may fail to account for all possible inputs of a product system, or the input data contains some degree of uncertainty (Zhang et al., 2020). Blockchain-based LCA can enable real-time lifecycle data to be captured, allowing for data traceability and generating large-scale real-time data – improving data assessment and processing within the context of governance mechanisms for SSCs (Zhang et al., 2020).

Blockchain can assist organizations with acquiring and maintaining certification of environmental management systems for SCs such as ISO 14001 (Kouhizadeh and Sarkis, 2018). Even though green certification helps firms establish environmental quality control and set up accounting processes, certification schemes pose uncertainties of protecting all stakeholders and overusing resources and time (Rodrigue, 2018). Blockchain in SSC applications include tracking quantities, cost and impact of materials in the energy industry (Compact, 2016). It also assists local producers and consumers to exchange power without any intermediaries (Keshav, 2018). Blockchain can support monitoring climate-changing gases by tracking gas emissions against limits (Woyke, 2017).

Thus, there is evidence in the literature that blockchain can support governance mechanisms to improve SSC and build organizational supply chain legitimacy (Sulkowski, 2018). Most studies mentioning evaluating direct and moderating effect of blockchain characteristics on governance mechanisms and SSC practices is conceptual or listed as generalities are relatively conceptual with minimal empirical evidence (Esmaeilian et al., 2020; Francisco and Swanson, 2018). Informed by institutional theory, we believe that through institutional pressures governance mechanisms will support organizational SSC practices adoption (see Figure 4). We also consider whether blockchain capabilities can strengthen (influence) the relationship between institutionally based governance mechanisms (public, private or hybrid governance mechanism) and SSC practices. Using EPEAT as the use case study, we have selected nine SSC practices related to governing production. Each of these practices aligns with the three main SSC segments – managing upstream and downstream flows of SC, internal waste management or administering closed-loop processes such as reverse logistics.

3. Methodology

This study considers direct and indirect relationships between blockchain, governance mechanisms and SSC practices. EPEAT standards for computer monitors is the context and unit of analysis for evaluating the research questions. The theoretical framework proposed in this study is informed by institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) and more specifically by the polycentric governance aspects of this theory (Ostrom, 2010). Our theoretical framework (see Figure 4) proposes that blockchain directly relates to governance mechanisms and SSC practices, and also indirectly the relationship between those two constructs.

3.1 Empirical setting

The objective of this case study is to explore the impact of blockchain technology on diverse governance mechanisms and sustainable supply chain practices and their relationship. This study achieved it through input from industry experts in technology and sustainable supply chain practices. The nuances and complexities on how emergent blockchain technology influences such relationships is very difficult to capture using other methodologies.

King and Lenox (2000) used the Chemical Manufacturer's Association's Responsible Care Program case, and Delmas and Montes-Sancho (2011) studied the case of ISO 14001. In both these studies the environmental standards were the units of analysis. Similar to these studies, our study uses the case method to investigate the EPEAT standard as the unit of analysis, through expert experiences on the topic of blockchain relationships to governance mechanisms and SSC practices in the electronics industry. The main research question of the study seeks to determine how blockchain can influence SSC performance governance mechanisms at the corporate level and issues during its implementation. The electronics industry has global implications throughout its supply chain and must adhere to different regulations across the globe. EPEAT is a polycentric governance mechanism for the electronics industry if they want to sell products to the US government for example. Studying how the electronics industry manages the implementation of blockchain for the EPEAT standard in their SSC practices can inform the research question of this study. This case research describes the phenomenon of interest and its context (Taylor and Søndergaard, 2017). Based on Yin (2009), when the evidence found confirms the emergent theoretical frameworks, it increases the framework's validity. Alternatively, when evidence disconfirms emerging theoretical relationships, there is an opportunity to refine or extend the theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). This research presents the study of several enterprises with diverse data in a period of three months.

3.2 Data collection

Data collection occurred in September–November 2019. We collected data through semi-structured interviews of international experts from different organizations. Table 1 summarizes expert characteristics. Due to topic novelty, finding key informants was difficult. The criteria to choose respondents was: (1) individuals knowledgeable in SC, sustainability and-or blockchain; (2) diversity of roles and perspectives; (3) geographic dispersion; (4) heterogeneity of organizations; and (5) varying levels of experience. Prior to the semi-structured interviews, respondents were sent an email with a dictionary of terms and the interview questions. The protocol was informed by institutional governance, information asymmetry, and SSC theories and practices.

This process allowed them to carefully recollect issues they have faced and help form their opinions more effectively.

The main data for this study consists of eleven semi-structured interviews with experts on the subject. Within the interview, open ended questions were used so respondents would offer their insights on the topic. Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 min. The interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed for future transcript analysis.

3.3 Data analysis

A thematic analysis based on the research questions and existing theories was completed (Eisenhardt, 1989). We followed Creswell (2014) steps to analyze the data:

1. Organize and prepare the data for analysis.

2. Read all the data.

3. Code all the data (Figure 1).

4. Generate a description of the data (Figure 2).

5. Generate and group the descriptions in themes (Figure 3).

6. Represent the description and themes (Figure 4).

For steps 3 through 5 we used NVIVO 12 Plus. The first step to code the data was to complete open coding. Following (Crowe et al., 2015) we open coded the transcripts. Then the codes were grouped in categories based on the theoretical model and its elements. After that process, the categories were assigned a theme based using theoretical model's three constructs: governance mechanisms, SSC practices, and blockchain capabilities. During the grouping process the research team would iterate the results to see if the codes belonged in that group. If it was determined that it should be changed consensus had to be reached.

4. Results

The study results are presented with specific construct elements and sectioning (Figure 4). The general framework is a theorization of the relationship between identified governance mechanisms – especially those associated with the EPEAT certification standards – identified SSC practices and the influence on the relationship from blockchain characteristics and capabilities. The respondent data is evaluated along this proposed theoretical model.

Blockchain directly influences governance mechanisms and SSC practices and also exerts an indirect influence on the relationship between governance mechanisms and SSC practices as well. Blockchain is a trustless distributed ledger technology. Blockchain data is decentralized, traceable and transparent with visibility across distributed databases. We begin this evaluation of responses based on general blockchain characteristics that link governance mechanisms and SSC practices. Each blockchain element is evaluated using respondent input.

4.1 Blockchain's effect on governance mechanisms

In the electronics industry, personal computers must comply with local and regional regulations even if costs are greater. The European Union tends to be more driven by regulatory standards than the United States, the United Kingdom, Latin America and countries that are part of the British Commonwealth such as Australia and New Zealand. Most difficult measures that companies have to adjust and adopt tend to be coercive – required – by the state. This can be difficult because companies will have to make sure that the production process follows varying rules and regulations. Blockchain can help with auditing the compliance of these regulations regardless of company location, especially through blockchain transparency capabilities.

Audits in the SC can cover environmental aspects. That can be many items … the transparency of the audit will affect EPEAT standard products and can be improved. Audit transparency can be improved greatly through decentralized distributed ledgers. – Respondent B

Respondents spoke about blockchain supporting SSC governance implementation. They emphasized that blockchain can aid in adoption and management of standards and regulations such as RoHS, Energy Star and ISO14000. Blockchain can support companies willing to limit their environmental and social impact. Blockchain transparency helps ensure blockchain participants have a broader information view. Blockchain also enhances business process trust, especially between customer and manufacturers.

Blockchain can support governance mechanisms after they are established. Yet, EPEAT aware respondents are still not able to fully understand the how. One of the aspects of blockchain that adds value to standards is transparency. Companies that seek to meet RoHS state that applying a blockchain system in their company makes the compliance process faster, easier and helps efficiency. Blockchain records can show compliance with deviations from the standard easily identified.

So, the standards enforcement can be easier with the technology, it will help maintain enforcement on everyone … to make sure they follow the standard. That's how it will add more value to the SC. – Respondent E

Immutability provides oversight and governance among SC stakeholders. It also adds transparency and credibility including the historical issues companies faced. Transparency is more likely when individuals can be identified as data authors, or if they changed it. Blockchain's immutability helps to prevent fraud – especially when seeking to meet sustainability standards – through the oversight of multiple stakeholders. Because information cannot be altered, it can be used to address partner disputes. Having multiple stakeholder hybrid governance makes blockchain governance support more effective.

There's environmental integrity on top of the data integrity with a distributed ledger technology. – Respondent K

One respondent noted that there is a lack of clarity in the benefit of having data immutability. A concern about consensus, immutability, and security arises from majority consensus rules. Those in the minority may worry about changes that do or do not occur. This practice of majority consensus can result in the tyranny of the majority and may require some adjustment in a joint governance situation. As one respondent stated:

Having all to agree, to have consensus agreement, to make something mutable and then make it immutable again with that new change in it makes it a good characteristic. (…) there will be a minority population that might not agree, putting stress in the adoption. – Respondent F

Blockchain smart contracts support following previously agreed upon rules. Some respondents are not convinced that smart contracts are better solutions. Substitutes, such as trusted third parties, exist. By having a decentralized distributed ledger actors are not able to hide or edit data, which can ensure standards compliance, furthering security and transparency. Many respondents viewed these characteristics as still immature, limiting their current governance potential.

So, they cannot hide, they cannot edit their internal data. I think, by having the decentralized blockchain it will make sure there is compliance to the certifications. – Respondent E

There is a need to extract another level of standards that cover the way that the decentralized databases and applications interact with the standards. So, you need some overarching structures that aren’t in place yet. - Respondent F

4.2 Blockchain's effect on sustainable supply chain practices

In managing material flows, the environmental and social challenges are the confirmation that the designed product and process are actually followed along the product's life cycle. It is also important to verify its impact in different tiers of the SC. This information (confirming the design and impact) creates value for the whole SC.

Blockchain can share information across the SC. You can trace the lifecycle from beginning to end. The bill of material can be traced, our CTO believes that the blockchain can serve as a middle-ware tool to help link across ERP systems in our SC. – Respondent D

Blockchain functions include managing flows in which processes can be recorded, tracked, and traced. Security and data reliability aspects require validation in the blockchain; some processes cannot be executed without validation. Although there is still ambiguity and hesitation around blockchain adoption, the underlying technology can serve as a middleware – as a platform and supporting foundational element. In SSC governance, the blockchain can be used for evaluating the product's lifecycle, tracking mine-to-customer of certain materials requiring visibility and transparency, help with counterfeiting, product safety, data privacy and protection, compliance, and capturing manufacturer carbon footprints; all examples provided by respondents. Respondents are optimistic about blockchain applications – an example quote of many provided by the respondents confirms this optimism.

Having a more transparent system, you can certify information without showing the physical part. This opens industry possibilities to go more online because customers now wish to have more customization. – Respondent C

Another issue is that no acceptable and clear process exists to measure and capture environmental measures. Product lifecycle characteristics, energy conservation and carbon footprints, amongst other factors do not have accepted processes for data capture. Blockchain cannot help distinguish if an aspect complies with a standard. According to one respondent, blockchain helps with commercial business aspects but was skeptical about environmental aspects. Blockchain is not sustainability focused companies are focusing it on making better products and R&D. blockchain has been criticized because of the environmental issues that e-waste can potentially cause to the environment, and blockchain's energy requirements; which leads to circumspect evaluation and lack of trust associated with blockchain sustainability.

Blockchain can help in managing the sustainable SC. Although, companies care more about the commercial and financial aspect of its capabilities, but they care less about the environmental side of things. For the environmental side of things, it is only important, if it can serve traceability for compliance to some policies, or some custom rules, custom requirement or legal issues. If it's not, they're not interested. – Respondent D

A broad blockchain adoption facilitator is to assure conservative – risk averse – market players they will not be “burnt” in the process. Understanding the blockchain process and managing this process effectively adds value to the SC. Part of respondent blockchain skepticism is that other technology and databases can do the same job. One respondent believed that there are new distributed ledger technologies that are coming, which are more advanced, faster, cheaper, use less energy and have less of an environmental footprint of the distributed ledger itself. Part of the respondent skepticism is that blockchain needs additional capabilities. When it comes to the environmental SCs, blockchain raises ambiguity, risk, and uncertainty related to LCA, conservation, carbon footprint, and packaging. Security is one of the major conditions for industries to accept and adopt blockchain – and respondents are not fully convinced that it can aid in this process.

Blockchain is not the solution but blockchain can be a framework for others to follow. – Respondent E

Industry wants to keep a certain control on the validation process. For blockchain adoption and in the SC in particular, this control needs to be within industry’s control. I think the potential this technology can flourish it is connected to the current enterprise blockchain or technology. – Respondent C

Few production systems fully utilize blockchain. SC-blockchain application is viewed as strategic – especially traceability, resilience, and trust for sustainability capabilities. Blockchain provides provenance of product sustainability along the SC.

… it's almost a no-brainer from my perspective in SC as a first applications, I have seen for blockchain. That makes complete sense … there's a number of things out there already, they're going to make it more interesting there are already some pieces of technology out there running it allow separate chains from different sources to talk to each other. – Respondent F

Blockchain can help us reduce the heavy workload associated with ROHS compliance. This is information we must share with our design group as well. –Respondent G.

Overall, respondents show varying levels of understanding of blockchain and its role. Some respondents believed that the focus should not be on changing data but changing their processes to meet requirements. The roles of government was not always clear and represented a variety of potential influences from guaranteeing security, transparency, or standards. Customer pressure was also mentioned and can force SCs to be transparent with their processes. This situation is especially true for SSCs. There is an impact on the overall process when having transparency on the provenance and production processes of different production activities. In the end, the information accumulated in the final product must be reliable – standards can support this perspective by providing a baseline of information required.

Blockchain's transparency supports the capability to track the lifecycle of products. Manufacturers will find it easier to respond because they can confirm and increase the veracity of the information knowing who and when the information was provided. Traceability increases trust in the blockchain since it is not owned by one entity, such as by ERP. Blockchain can trace the product manufacture and processing conditions. Traceability supports product provenance, the production process, social and environmental production impact, and standards followed. Theoretically, blockchain participants are aware of product conditions during and after processing. Traceability can be implemented through digital identity – and sensors – such as RFID, that digitally links products to the blockchain. Government agencies and private standards can enable smart contracts for product traceability.

So, the idea is to be able to better confirm what's truly being acquired how it's being used, by also tracking (trace) what is coming out of the factory as well. […] it also of course, can track the actual materials itself. – Respondent I

Traceability can support end-of-life environmental SC aspects such as product location or if it is being recycled. Respondents confirmed that immutability, transparency, and traceability can aid standards and SC sustainability.

You will know the provenance of the product itself. Once the product arrives in the production part, it already has this ID information. (…) The results can add up all these elements of production and impact on environment and people include all this information to ensure that at the end, the product itself is actually following the standards. (…) This information must be reliable. The immutability of data in the blockchain allows the system to be transparent and credible …. Overall, I think those are key blockchain characteristics that can support blockchain for sustainable SCs. – Respondent C

Data decentralization is key to providing security, credibility and transparency. A major difference between blockchain and other digital ledger technology is database decentralization. With blockchains, suppliers can add sets of information directly and do it with certain rules that are within the blockchain. Thanks to this feature, the efficiency of governance mechanisms increases because auditors can go in the system to validate, and with universal direct access. When companies ask for information about partners in decentralized databases, it can be more transparent for customers. Decentralized databases inform customers on how they can dispose their product that is reaching the end of its life, and how it can be collected, recycled, repaired or refurbished.

4.3 Blockchain's indirect effect on governance Mechanism's and sustainable supply chain Practice's relationship

Blockchain characteristics and capabilities can strengthen (influence) the relationship between governance mechanisms and SSC practices adoption. We provide a summary of how managers believe this to be true or limited for each of the major capabilities.

Blockchain's transparency addresses assurance and accountability, which empowers stakeholders to incentivize and motivate sustainability. Traceability allows companies to know each item's lifecycle through the product's bill of materials. One aspect that differentiates blockchain from other technologies is its ability to integrate multiple SC stakeholders. This integration is possible because blockchain can serve as SC middleware tying various partner operating systems such as ERP. If blockchain is implemented properly, it can add value to customers in terms of transparency, reduce duplicates and fake items in the market. It also can make sustainability affordable and feasible. These outcomes can support governance mechanisms, especially those that focus on audit processes for products. But even these items are promises and not actual fully implemented blockchain aspects. Respondents felt that blockchain will work, and promises met if there is a broader strategic perspective for sustainability in organizations.

Regulations must be followed. Some companies want to ensure that processes they minimize the impact on environment and people. Once you have a company willing to follow a sustainability path – whatever the reason – then blockchain can obviously support it. – Respondent C

Blockchain also has some constraints (Kouhizadeh et al., 2021; Saberi et al., 2019). Blockchain has some issues with performance scalability; in other words, difficulty in full blown implementation for SSC. Companies are wary of blockchain; they want to keep a control of the validation process, for processes, data and transactions. To avoid having wrong information, companies need to have a good process in place to audit the information input to the blockchain; this auditing can be costly. There is also a concern that current technology – other databases – can perform the same functions as blockchains. One respondent stated that information is not credible just because it is on the blockchain – that is, there is a need for redundant verification systems.

Alternatively, blockchain can help standards verification requirements. Standards management can be very labor intensive, blockchain potentially reduce human involvement. Currently stewards must manually collect documents for standards like EPEAT or RoHS. Blockchain can make data capture and evaluation automate and more efficient.

We can significantly reduce the standards management costs as well. Blockchain will be fundamental to transforming the standards world. Blockchain can be very helpful in advancing sustainability solutions, including SCs, through having a more comprehensive system of sustainability standards. Right now, the sustainability standards are a patchwork across the value chain, and they don't work together they’re not very interoperable – Respondent K

Data helps set benchmarks and supports product quality. Blockchain data immutability leads to data trust. Immutability does not mean that there is no room for change, because consensus data changes are allowed. This element of blockchain can add trust to the governance-SSC management relationship. It can assure change in data is completed only after due diligence by multiple stakeholders. We did find that there was a misunderstanding of immutability (in addition to other blockchain elements). Some respondents felt that data change can occur after a consensus among blockchain participants. Other respondents felt immutability meant no possibility for changing old data. This conflicting perspective is a microcosm of ambiguity issues associated with blockchain protocol and capabilities.

Blockchain based shared ledgers can provide data and information transparency. Respondents shared the need for more transparency and more information about production processes. Transparency opens the opportunity to widen the supplier network because it can more easily confirm compliance of rules and regulation. However, a major barrier for companies is privacy loss.

You can validate certain information, if you look at pollution, and if you have public databases, then that might help. You can check on the data quality. Because otherwise, a supplier might tell you any nonsense. So how do you double check? And double check is of course costly. For both sides. – Respondent J

Blockchain transparency can also be viewed as advantageous. The technology is considered a new potential approach that can revolutionize audit processes and make it transparent and centralized for an organization. It can be used to manage suppliers and vendors and help to prove that the SC does meet the standards. Transparency is sought mainly by end users, customers, and channel partners. Stakeholders can check with the blockchain how materials comply with standards that the company says they are certified with.

So how we can make the customer trust that your product is really designed to meet the criteria? So, this is something, for EPEAT. There's a lot of private aspects. So, we can ask a different partner, maybe in a decentralized database to provide the proof for different criteria or points in EPEAT. So, I think this can be more transparent. And transparent for customer, SC and by the customers also. – Respondent G

Blockchain data can help provide proof that a company is following the standards and is more conscious and efficient with standards management. Efficiency is an important transparency contribution. It provides economic benefits for different stakeholders; and even allows an expansion of the supply base. Transparency can transfer control to everyone involved in the blockchain with lessened information search costs allowing to see performance from a broader variety of potential partners.

By being more transparent they had opened the opportunity as well to analyze, or to widen their network of suppliers. Instead of always going with the same guys so most of the time the biggest players were the least compliant. So, that opened opportunities for a larger number of suppliers for many of them so there was more efficient in terms of business. – Respondent C

Transparency helps make it easier to meet the standards … Let's say you have a standard and there's certain requirements for that standard. let's say you have to do A, B, C and D to comply with the standard. And you have to do it every month, and you have to train your employees to it, and do these things in order to be able to meet standard requirements. If you want to share that data on the blockchain and make it transparent to the other stakeholders; it is also easier to show and share. – Respondent A

Traceability supports environmental practices. Traceability can inform customers on recycled material or product source. Companies use traceability for environmental aspects if policies, rules, and customs are required or legally bound. One example used as a SSC practice are carbon credit tokens – where carbon credits can be validated through traceability.

Greenhouse gas can be tokenized with traceability. Create carbon credit tokens, or any kind of bottom up, accounting … We can then reconcile all these tokenized carbon accounting units or assets to ensure environmental integrity, because we'll see right now through a blockchain. – Respondent K

Smart contracts execute contracts without partner interaction. Smart contracts can also relate to building immutability, consensus, agreement or carrying out a transaction or process. Respondents were still unclear on smart contract benefits. Smart contracts can help ensure that different elements are checked – that sustainability standards are met in SSC practice. It validates whether the requirements of the contract have been met, which may include sustainability standards for products that move through the SC. There is an efficiency with this process where products that don't meet standards criteria can be rejected as part of product sustainability performance.

Blockchain uses smart contracts … We can trace the footprint of our product. So, when it arrives at the channel partner site, the system immediately gave feedback to the blockchain system, and no one can change it. So, it actually can be rejected if it doesn’t meet the smart contract requirements – Respondent G

Smart contracts between key players can be helpful because there is transaction validation. Government agencies can write smart contracts; serving as authoritative figures in the system. Smart contracts can support SC environmental aspects by enforcing rules – a process may not be executed if a sustainability standard is not met, for example. This requires that environmental standards are built into the smart contracts. Some companies use blockchain just for the smart contract capability to manage transactions as invoicing and leasing.

Having smart contracts can include validation of a transaction … or a validation of a certain elements linked to the product. (…) So, the different process of production that they followed can actually be validated, the different rules and regulation, and ensure that all the way you have a sustainable SC. So, I think once the blockchain is there is a natural next step. – Respondent C

5. Discussion

The literature and qualitative interviews provide insights into how blockchain influences the relationship between governance mechanisms and SSCs. We had considered two research questions in this study: Which blockchain features can help manage standards and governance mechanisms and adoption of SSC practices? and How well do blockchain characteristics and capabilities – including decentralization, security, transparency, traceability, and smart contracts – influence the relationship between governance mechanism standards and SSC practices adoption? These questions were studied for the EPEAT hybrid governance standards in the electronics industry. In helping to address these questions in this section we will provide some general findings while identifying research propositions. We will then have subsections discussing practical and research implications.

5.1 General findings and research propositions

Most respondents saw significant barriers to general blockchain application in the EPEAT standards implementation for the electronics industry and its supply chains. One substantial barrier to blockchain adoption is whether blockchain pilot and demonstrations can be scaled to the SC level (Kouhizadeh et al., 2021; Saberi et al., 2019). Another concern voiced by respondents included whether blockchain was needed in all situations for standards and governance mechanism. Although, interview respondents did find some blockchain aspects such as traceability as critical aspects supporting SSCs; some characteristics of blockchain can be replicated by other IT. A complete blockchain capabilities set – all in one place – was viewed as valuable. This package of blockchain elements – its capabilities – including decentralized databases, security, transparency, traceability, smart contracts and tokenization can support multiple standards in multiple ways. Respondents did specify that depending on the EPEAT standard, some blockchain capabilities provide greater opportunities than other capabilities.

Proposition 1.

Blockchain can enhance sustainability standards adoption. Individual characteristics and capabilities alone – such as security, transparency, traceability, smart contracts and tokenization – are not as beneficial as the whole package of blockchain capabilities to support standards.

Even though the whole blockchain capability package is valuable, the most promising characteristic identified by both interviewed experts and the literature was blockchain traceability. Traceability is likely to be the most predominant blockchain capability to support various SSC practices and governance standards (e.g Rejeb and Rejeb, 2020). Supplier environmental performance – whether for public or private measures and standards – is the most likely activity influenced by governance mechanisms. This would include making sure suppliers have third party certifications – such as ISO 14000.

The SSC literature includes various sustainable activities supported by blockchain (Kouhizadeh and Sarkis, 2018; Sarkis et al., 2021). Literature shows that for all portions of the product life cycle, either in forward or reverse SC, traceability with transparency will likely enhance user and consumer acceptance of sustainability standards (Esmaeilian et al., 2020; Kouhizadeh et al., 2021). Substance management – implying hazardous substances – is viewed as critical for transparency and traceability (Kouhizadeh and Sarkis, 2018). This focus will usually entail public governance requirements and regulations such as RoHS and WEEE (Bahers and Kim, 2018; Yu et al., 2006). Transparency allows the SC of substances location and processing. Traceability shows source and location in the electronics industry SC. These observations lead to our next general proposition from our study and literature.

Proposition 2.

Traceability, as a blockchain capability, provides the greatest advantage for supporting sustainability governance mechanisms when compared to other blockchain capabilities.

Blockchain for SSC governance mechanisms is facing competing systems – see sections 4.1.1 and 4.2, which represent potential barriers. The respondents discussed a variety of existing technologies such as ERP systems, RFID sensor technology and Internet capabilities that can be linked to or enhance blockchain governance in the electronics industry. Respondents felt that in this case current and even emergent technologies can work together to enhance their resources. Studies have argued that blockchain can effectively link to IoT and machine learning to empower firms' capabilities for controlling, provisioning and managing information, product and financial flows more efficiently. This integrative perspective can enhance SSC governance. Gathering large amounts of data can be achieved through sensors and IoT (see Esmaeilian et al., 2020 and Vangala et al., 2020). Given these perspectives from respondents in the EPEAT situation and in the electronics industry and the general literature relating to integrative technologies and legacy system linkages to blockchain, we arrive at an important research proposition that needs to be evaluated.

Proposition 3.

Blockchain integrated with other technologies such as ERP, IoT and sensor technology can support governance mechanisms (standards) and SSC practices more effectively – with greater synergistic benefits than the technologies separately.

The governance mechanisms considered in this study are based on public, private and hybrid governance (Gereffi and Lee, 2016). SSC practices can be governed and supported by regulatory (public) and private mechanisms – or through a hybrid governance situation such as EPEAT. A major study finding is the potential for blockchain in managing the governance mechanisms–SSC relationship in the electronics industry supply chain. As a whole, blockchain still needs to prove the case on why it is a better solution than other databases and IT. Blockchain has a number of issues and barriers including existence of legacy systems, being able to scale for high volume and velocity data, and overall acceptance by the community (Esmaeilian et al., 2020; Kouhizadeh et al., 2021). Blockchain can directly help in governance of SSCs and the adoption of SSC practices specific to organizations – as mentioned in our previous propositions. Given these findings and results from our EPEAT case study, especially from Section 4.2, we arrive at our most general and direct proposition related to our second research question:

Proposition 4.

Blockchain can positively influence the relationship between SSC governance mechanisms (EPEAT standards) and the adoption of SSC practices.

5.2 Research implications

A number of research implications arise from our findings and propositions. This study resulted in four research propositions. Each of these propositions is related to current research findings but also sets the stage for future, more nuanced investigation.

Institutional development through blockchain integration within SSC governance may allow electronics industry sustainability to mature allowing this institutional field to become more established globally. Blockchain can contribute to further institutional field development by strengthening the relationship between governance mechanisms and electronics SC sustainability. This observation has a couple additional theoretical implications. First, blockchain is not yet an “institutional infrastructure” (Hinings et al., 2018). Yet blockchain integration with governance institutions and sustainability practices can cause institutions to evolve from a “proto-institution” (Lawrence et al., 2002) to an important aspect for established institutional governance mechanism.

Another theoretical implication is that blockchain can make it easier to govern global SCs. Globalized communication and information sharing allows for easier diffusion of governance standards that are critical for many sustainability standards – not just EPEAT. Global transparency became an obvious concern for many respondents to help manage materials and processes. This relationship and its globalization not only means multiple governance fields (Gereffi and Lee, 2016) are likely to play predominant roles, but also poly-centric governance aspects of institutional theory (Ostrom, 2010) can be influenced. Polycentric governance stipulates that there are multiple centers of decision making that are formally independent of each other – as is the case with public and private governance. Decision-making environments with greater and easier access to information, traceability and transparency may allow for greater coherency amongst distributed players, furthering a polycentric governance style (Ostrom, 2010).

These relationships and evolution require additional investigation as information asymmetry barriers decrease – potentially supporting more efficient governance mechanism s and institutional pressures to flow throughout SCs. Resulting SSC practices adoption is likely to increase. This adoption rate and diffusion of sustainability practices and sustainability standards may differ depending on the location in the SC and blockchain capability aspect. Potential theoretical relationships between institutional theory, information theory, and diffusion of innovation theory can be expanded upon and reinforced (Allen et al., 2020). Building governance and SSC standards relationships by advancing blockchain institutional innovation can be explained through newer diffusion theory perspectives.

Our study may influence other theoretical perspectives – such as the resource-based view, technology acceptance models or transaction costs perspectives; we do not delve into these additional research implications at this time, but there are opportunities to link multiple levels of analysis to the broader governance standards across the SC and blockchain technology.

5.3 Practical implications

There are many practical implications that exist from this exploratory study. SC participants, policymakers, blockchain developer and service provider implications exist.

Governmental and standards organizations, although critical for blockchain sustainability support for electronics SCs, may have to wait to influence blockchains until the technology and practices mature. Arguably, setting governmental standards for blockchain supported sustainability dimensions can improve adoption success (Malik et al., 2021). Government agencies can play a role at later stages in setting blockchain standards through organizations such as ISO. More mature sustainability standards and regulations for SSC such as WEEE and RoHS may be good early government standards for blockchain usage. EPEAT standards users are interested, but still feel there are many uncertainties and the electronics markets have yet to provide motivation and need for blockchain.

Early blockchain adoptions for SSC governance are likely to focus on transparency and traceability. Blockchain developers and vendors should make sure that these blockchain affordances perform exceptionally. Sustainability standards require trust in the information. Blockchain can provide this trust. SC actors will likely embrace these capabilities but may be wary of this adoption due to privacy and proprietary information concerns. Blockchain traceability and transparency measures can represent “good faith” efforts by organizations to meet regulatory policy.

Meeting EPEAT standards – hybrid governance standards – is likely to be easier with proof across the SC – through the use of blockchain. Increased trust in these standards will likely mean greater and easier diffusion of standards. If EPEAT stakeholders can take advantage of adding greater reliability to sustainability standards through blockchain it is likely to increase the adoption of sustainability practices.

End-of-life or energy management standards are likely be adopted at later stages as blockchain matures. Currently, end-of-life management may not be as valuable since most organizations are focusing on upstream traceability and transparency measures to monitor SCs. Thus, developers may wish to focus on upstream governance mechanism capabilities. Developers should be concerned with integrating other technologies including IoT, artificial intelligence and machine learning to support governance mechanisms and SSC practices.

Having smart contract capabilities as a common blockchain capability will improve diffusion of blockchains. Smart contracts can be developed for governance linkages to ensuring information transparency and traceability will be important.

There are other practical implications such as improving some of the capabilities through synergistic relationships to IoT and legacy systems for developers, training and education requirements in this environment, and clarifying the roles of standards developers. As the technology matures – and as governance standards evolve – these relationships may alter and this uncertainty and complexity will likely remain a concern for practitioners.

6. Conclusion

In this study, we have provided an overview of the relationships between various governance mechanisms, private, public and hybrid, blockchain, and SSC practices. Blockchain can aid in governance of sustainability in the SC, but the technology is still relatively immature for the electronics SC market. This situation is likely to be true for most SCs (Grover et al., 2019). As blockchain and each of its capabilities mature, it is more likely that improved management and oversight by blockchains to support governance mechanisms will occur.

The study is exploratory given the relative novelty of governance standards, blockchain technology, and sustainability SC standards. But it sets the stage for a broader study. There are strong implications for policymakers who may find insights from this study to further adopt technology and incorporate standards for industries to use. In fact, monitoring effectiveness of various sustainability regulatory practices such as WEEE and ROHS will be valuable to policymakers.

Managers, companies, and other stakeholders may find the information and transparency of these systems to be valuable for building trust and acceptance of standards. For example, when consumers wish to purchase a “green” computer they can trust the greenness of the computer from manufacturers following the EPEAT standards that are blockchain supported. With blockchain immutability, traceability, and transparency consumers may view trusted information supporting computer greenness or a specific EPEAT standard. Companies in the SC may find it easier to comply and prove standards are being met in an efficient way. For example, with blockchain smart contracts, transparency and traceability, if a banned material is included in a product during processing anywhere along the SC, the product would be flagged or the transaction would be stopped. This adds greater efficiency before a product or component is able to be moved to the next SC stage. These are all potentials given that actual complete implementations have yet to occur.

The limitations of this study are clear and represent opportunities for future research. First, we only focus on one industry and one set of hybrid governance standards that include public and private standards simultaneously. The advantage of only focusing on one industry was to help control for industry differences. This single industry focus limits our ability to generalize the findings. We do believe that general theoretical insights are possible, as exemplified by our research propositions, but more study is needed to evaluate whether these propositions are applicable across industries. We also provided research propositions that, in some cases, are quite general. More specific hypotheses need to be generated as broader empirical studies, and even industry specific studies, are developed and tested.

The complexity of the variety of SSC practices and the hybrid governance relationships are also difficult to parse out in this study. Future studies should be clear in the type of governance standards and SSC practices with blockchain capabilities. Many relationships exist and the nuances of these relationships need further investigation.

The sample of respondents – although expert in many of the areas of this study – are still limited. Although definitions are given to all respondents, their biases in definitions still existed. This bias may need to be reduced but it may require that the fields, especially sustainability standards and blockchain, mature as common understandings emerge. Thus, a longitudinal study is needed as the fields mature to determine if these findings remain consistent or evolve. Relatedly, the level of knowledge was also quite mixed; we attempted to glean generalities, but parsing the level of expertise and knowledge of respondents, and even the literature, still may have biased our interpretations. For this reason, more objective empirical studies, would benefit development of this relationship.

Overall this study sets an important foundation for advancing research and theory on inter-organizational information technology and systems management from a theoretical and practical perspective. We believe the complexity of socio-technical relationships that exist in the relationships between governance, sustainability, SCs and blockchain provides fertile ground for significantly more research.

Figures

Figure 1

Open coding of transcript

Figure 2

Code description

Figure 3

Code grouping in themes

Figure 4

The Theoretical thematic framework Investigated in this study

Table 1

Respondents pool

Respondent	Industry	Position	Years of experience in position	Country
A	Technology	Global Head Sustainability Solutions	15 years	USA
B	Technology	Owner	25 years	USA
C	Technology	Founder	2.5 years	Thailand
D	Government	IT Manager	25 years	Australia
E	Technology	VP of Finance and IT	2 years	USA
F	Manufacturing	Founder	17 years	USA
G	Manufacturing	Stewardship Manager	13 years	China
H	Technology Consulting	Responsible for Blockchain Strategy	2.5 years	USA
I	NGO	CEO	4 years	USA
J	Education	Supply Chain Management Professor	13 years	Germany
K	Technology	Co-Founder	20 years	Canada

Source(s): Authors’ work

Notes

1. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/how-a-circular-approach-can-turn-e-waste-into-a-golden-opportunity/

2. https://unu.edu/news/news/with-e-waste-predicted-to-double-by-2050-business-as-usual-is-not-an-option.html#:∼:text=A%20new%20report%20from%20the,111%20million%20tonnes%20per%20year

3. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-regarding-efficient-federal-operations/

4. https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/e-waste-recycling-united-states/

5. https://www.ibm.com/downloads/cas/G985VKKE

6. https://unctad.org/news/sustainability-standards-can-unlock-new-markets-developing-countries

Declaration of interest statement: The authors confirm that there are no relevant financial or nonfinancial competing interests to report.