Blockchain’s impact on key stakeholders in the seafood supply chain: a systematic review

Abstract

Blockchain technology can potentially enhance transparency, traceability, and trustworthiness within the seafood supply chain, effectively addressing seafood fraud and safety. This systematic review synthesizes 99 relevant academic publications from six databases from 2018 to 2025, examining blockchain adoption and its impacts on key stakeholders. Our findings show that the key stakeholders are the production sector, distribution sector, market sector, and governance and regulatory sector. The key stakeholders’ role is related to traceability and sustainability compliance, preventing seafood fraud and mislabeling, and enhancing market trust and consumer awareness. Findings regarding adoption highlight positive factors, including cost-efficiency, operational improvements, sustainability, and enhanced consumer trust and loyalty, alongside challenges like regulatory uncertainty, scalability concerns, and coordination complexities. In addition, blockchain-enabled information notably benefits fishmongers from improved traceability, reduced costs, and strengthened market positioning. Our analysis is that blockchain adoption in the seafood industry remains limited due to fragmented governance structures, inconsistent standards, and constrained Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) capacity, which hinder data interoperability and coordinated implementation. Moving forward, regulatory alignment, institutional coordination, and technological standardization are essential to transform fragmented pilot projects into scalable, production-level traceability systems. Future research should validate blockchain’s real-world performance through empirical and cross-cultural studies, refine stakeholder roles, and develop interoperable, regulation-ready authentication frameworks that promote adoption among SMEs.

1 Introduction

The global seafood supply chain faces significant challenges, particularly mislabeling seafood products. Kroetz et al. (2020) reveal that mislabeling negatively impacts marine environments, affecting population health, fishery management effectiveness, and aquatic ecosystems. Leahy (2021) analyzed over 9,000 seafood samples from various outlets across 30 countries, revealing alarming mislabeling rates, with 36% reported being mislabeled. For example, Xiong et al. (2020) found misrepresentation in 58% of roasted fish fillet products in Chinese markets. Cawthorn et al. (2018) observed mislabeling in about 40% of fish sold under the label “snapper” across different countries worldwide. Pardo et al. (2018) discovered that one in three European restaurants sold mislabeled seafood to their consumers. Such fraudulent practices undermine the trust and interests of key stakeholders throughout the seafood supply chain.

From a conceptual perspective, blockchain technology offers a promising solution by enhancing transparency, traceability, and immutability from seafood origin to consumption (Shmatko et al., 2023; Tsolakis et al., 2021). Moreover, blockchain system differs from other information systems in terms of decentralization, and this technical feature determines that as long as the data is stored in the chain, the integrity of recorded data can be ensured (Lei and Ngai, 2023). Once recorded, this information is considerably harder to alter and could significantly improve the authenticity of seafood products and prevent fraudulent labelling (Bharathi S et al., 2024; Galvez et al., 2018; Rauniyar et al., 2023; Xue-Lønmo, 2024). However, the data within a blockchain can only be validated as being “unchanged” since ingestion, as this does not inherently ensure accurate data. Each block in the blockchain contains information linked in chronological order, with every new block verified and added to all nodes in the network. This decentralized network of peers ensures data immutability by preventing any single entity from controlling or manipulating shared records. Henriksen et al. (2021) and Kumar et al. (2021) further highlight that a blockchain-enabled framework can reduce data leakage and falsification, and enable secure, scalable, and transparent information sharing among stakeholders in the seafood supply chain (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

The rest of the article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents conceptual foundations related to seafood authentication and blockchain technology adoption. Section 3 outlines the systematic review methodology based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021). Section 4 reports the results of the literature screening. Section 5 analyses the selected studies in relation to the four research questions. Section 6 discusses the findings and managerial implications. Finally, Section 7 concludes the study and outlines limitations and directions for future research.

2 Background

2.1 Key stakeholders and their role in authentication in the seafood supply chain

The seafood supply chain stakeholders’ activities involve multiple interconnected phases, including farming, harvesting, processing, transportation, distribution, and final sale (Macusi et al., 2022). Authentication in seafood supply chains is essential for ensuring traceability, food safety, and sustainability (Ismail et al., 2023). Authentication begins at the fishing and aquaculture stage, where fishers and aquaculturists record essential data, including species identification, fishing location, and fishing methods (Danezis et al., 2016).

2.2 Factors influencing the adoption of blockchain technology by key stakeholders responsible for authentication in the seafood supply chain

2.3 Blockchain-enabled information and consumer trust and loyalty

Trust and loyalty are critical factors in consumer decision-making, particularly in the food industry, where concerns about safety, sustainability, and ethical sourcing influence purchasing behavior (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). In this context, trust refers to a consumer’s confidence in the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of blockchain-enabled information, shaped by the perceived credibility, functionality, and alignment of blockchain data with consumer expectations (Rabby et al., 2022; Vern et al., 2024). Loyalty, conversely, is defined as a consumer’s commitment to repurchasing seafood products from a particular brand or retailer, driven by positive experiences and trust in the product’s authenticity and ethical sourcing (Yavaprabhas et al., 2023). While blockchain objectively validates the blocks entered regarding product legitimacy, it remains unclear whether greater transparency directly translates into sustained consumer trust and loyalty.

2.4 Fishmongers and business benefits from blockchain technology

Fishmongers are specialized retailers who sell fresh or processed fish and seafood products to consumers, restaurants, and other businesses (Martínez-Cordero et al., 2021; Tsolakis et al., 2021; S. Zhong and Werner, 2025). They operate in various settings, including traditional fish markets, supermarkets, and online platforms, and play a critical role in connecting seafood suppliers with end consumers. As the seafood industry undergoes rapid digital transformation, understanding how these changes affect intermediary stakeholders such as fishmongers has become increasingly important. However, their participation in digital transformation, particularly blockchain technology initiatives, has received limited attention. Evidence of blockchain technology adoption in seafood supply chains remains scarce, mostly limited to pilot projects among major distributors, while implications for fishmongers and other Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) are still underexplored (Prompatanapak and Lopetcharat, 2020; Tsolakis et al., 2021; Zhong et al., 2024). In a business context, business benefits are often discussed in the literature as potential outcomes of adopting blockchain technology, such as increased operational efficiency, cost reductions, enhanced customer trust, and regulatory compliance (Marikyan et al., 2021; Schmidt, 2024; S. Zhong and Werner, 2025). For fishmongers, blockchain technology is expected to offer the possibility of greater product authenticity, reduced supply chain fraud, and improved transaction transparency, which may lead to competitive advantages and increased customer loyalty (Hao et al., 2024).

3 Methods and materials

Based on the PRISMA 2020 statement guidelines, we reviewed the existing relevant literature for our four research questions (Page et al., 2021). These guidelines enhance transparency, reproducibility, and quality by guiding researchers through identification, selection, extraction, and synthesis.

3.1 Eligibility criteria

All records and articles were included if they were (a) peer-reviewed journal articles, chapters, conference articles, and conference proceedings; (b) published from 1st January 2018 to the 4th of March 2025; and (c) written in English. The records and articles that violated the inclusion criteria were excluded. In the first stage, records were included based on journal source, publication year, titles, abstracts, keywords, methodology and findings. Furthermore, if they had terms and synonyms related to each research question, as shown in Supplementary Appendix 1. Records that were included were assessed for the second stage. The full article was read and assessed in the second stage based on whether it satisfied the inclusion criteria for the four research questions. The inclusion criteria for the second stage were as follows.

Regarding RQ1, the articles were included if they explicitly mentioned in their research question that they investigated key stakeholders involved in authentication in the seafood supply chain. “Key stakeholders” in this research question refer to an “individual or group that has an interest in any decision or activity of an organization” (American Society for Quality, 2024). “Authentication” in this research question refers to “in the food supply chain is represented by the food authentication, a process by which the compliance of foods with their label descriptions (e.g., geographic origin, production method, processing technology, composition, etc.) can be verified, otherwise being fraud” (Danezis et al., 2016, p.1). “The seafood supply chain” refers to “every wild seafood supply chain begins with a producer (the fisher) and terminates with an end buyer, who sells to a consumer. End buyers include retail outlets (from locally owned fish markets to national supermarket chains), restaurants, and food service establishments, such as hotels, hospitals, and schools” (The Nature Conservancy, 2024).

Regarding RQ2, the articles had to explicitly mention key stakeholders’ adoption of blockchain technology in the seafood supply chain in the research question. “Adoption of blockchain technology” in this research question refers to Marikyan et al. (2022), p. 2 “Due to the security and privacy features of blockchains, the adoption of the technology can be regarded as a behavior protecting oneself from the consequences of the privacy and security issues in digital data exchange”.

Regarding RQ3, articles mentioned that “blockchain-enabled” in this research question refers to “Blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets in a business network” (IBM Blockchain, 2024). “Information” in this research question refers to “a collection of data that gives everyone an advantage since it helps in decision-making for the individuals involved” (Javatpoint, 2021). “Consumer trust” in this research question refers to “the expectations held by the consumer that the service provider is dependable and can be relied on to deliver on its promises” (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). “Loyalty” refers to “Loyalty of customers is considered to be a function of satisfaction, and loyal customers contribute to company profitability by spending more on company products and services, via repeat purchasing, and by recommending the organization to other customers” (John, 2016, p.113).

Regarding RQ4, articles were included if they mentioned “business benefit”, which this research question refers to “a tangible outcome of an action or decision that contributes towards reaching one or more business objectives” (Schmidt, 2024). In this research question, “fishmongers” refer to “a shopkeeper who sells fish” (Collinsdictionary, 2024).

3.2 Search, selection, collection, and synthesis method

Regarding the search, the information sources for this systematic review included the following search engines: “Web of Science”, “Taylor & Francis”, “Emerald Insight”, “Springer Link”, “IEEE Xplore” and “ScienceDirect”, open access and content access, academic English peer-reviewed journal articles, chapters, conference articles, and conference proceedings in English, with issue publication dates from 1st January 2018 to the 4^th of March 2025. To ensure that the most recent literature was included, the initial search was conducted on 23 December 2023, and the final search was completed on 4 March 2025. The search strategy involved identifying potentially eligible articles for each research question using the search strings shown in Supplementary Appendix 1. The same search terms were used on all search engines. The search strategy involved using the above filters in all search engines to select the articles that met the search criteria during the search process. The search process included extracting reference information, locating potentially eligible articles by clicking on each search engine’s keywords and date, researching options, and downloading the articles’ information files. These files contain the journal database name, year of publication, article title, authors, abstract, keywords, method and findings for each article.

The selection process consisted of several steps. Initially, the three authors collaboratively developed the selection strategy, reaching a consensus on its implementation. The first author then integrated the search results into an Excel matrix for systematic organization. Subsequently, the first author assessed to determine whether the records or studies met the eligibility criteria.

For the first stage, the first author used an Excel matrix to screen records that met the specified criteria in Supplementary Appendix 1. The second author assessed the screened records by comparing a randomly drawn subset and evaluating their correspondence to the first author’s assessment. For the second stage, the first author assessed the full text of each study to determine whether it satisfied the eligibility criteria for each research question and recorded it in detail in the Excel matrix and Supplementary Appendix 1.

The data collection process and synthesis method were conducted in the following manner. For the data collection process, the first author investigated the full text of the articles included and extracted the following data from each article. The data items were as follows: the year of publication, the name of the journal database of the article, title, authors, keywords, abstract, method and findings. The synthesis method used three main syntheses of results. The first one involved mapping the distribution of studies published from 1 January 2018, to 4 March 2025. Then, the study grouping related to each research question was done according to the keywords in the Supplementary Appendix 1. Lastly, a final operation consisted of the full text of each article being read individually, and the first author’s findings for each research question were based on these articles. The first author completed the research for this literature review under the guidance of the second author, and the first author also completed the writing with the guidance of the second author. Finally, the study was agreed upon by the three authors. The final version of this study was revised and finalized by three authors.

Although we did not use any formal quality appraisal methods, the following points illustrate the quality of the included articles. First, the method ensured inclusion of peer-reviewed articles that were published since 2018. Second, an analysis was done to map out what type of methods were used. Specifically, we categorized publications into conceptual, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method studies. Analysis showed that from the 99 publications, 33 are conceptual, 18 are quantitative empirical studies, 39 are qualitative empirical studies, and nine are mixed-method empirical studies after being deduplicated between each research question. For a detailed overview, please see Supplementary Appendix 2.

Due to the diversity of research designs, we did not employ a formal risk of bias assessment tool; however, this approach allowed us to contextualize the strength of evidence. The first author conducted the initial assessment, and the third author reviewed it to ensure consistency. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion among the three authors. This quality screening method helps to maintain the comprehensiveness of the research while providing a more transparent and balanced interpretation of the findings.

4 Results

The four research questions underwent a rigorous, systematic literature search and screening to ensure transparency and scientific credibility. Figure 2 shows that 5,185 articles were initially identified. Of these, 4,398 conference articles were excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. The initial search yielded 1,059 articles for Research Question 1; 829 articles for Research Question 2; 504 articles for Research Question 3; And 2,793 articles for Research Question 4.

FIGURE 2

After first eligibility criteria, 787 records remained. The remaining articles were subjected to a deduplication process. To enhance research accuracy and eliminate redundancy, duplicate articles identified across multiple search platforms were removed. Additionally, due to overlapping research questions, cross-duplicate and repeated articles within each category were excluded, amounting to 122 articles. Furthermore, 566 articles that failed to meet the screening criteria outlined in Section 3.1 were removed.

Following this, the count was reduced to 665 articles for the first round of screening. This phase evaluated the publication year, journal source, titles, abstracts, keywords, methodology (quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods), and key findings categorized into stakeholder roles, adoption factors, trust and loyalty, and business benefits. After this initial screening, 465 articles were retained for Research Question 1; 201 articles for Research Question 2; 49 articles for Research Question 3, and 72 articles for Research Question 4. Further refinement was conducted to ensure that only articles fully aligned with the study’s objectives were included. After re-evaluating the eligibility criteria, 437 articles were retained for Research Question 1; 131 articles for Research Question 2; 47 articles for Research Question 3, and 72 articles for Research Question 4, resulting in a total of 787 articles meeting the inclusion criteria.

The first author conducted a comprehensive full-text review in the second screening phase to finalize the selection. 99 articles were chosen to address the research questions: 34 articles corresponded to articles to Research Question 1; 43 articles for Research Question 2; 12 articles for Research Question 3, and 10 articles for Research Question 4. This rigorous selection process ensured the quality and relevance of the literature, providing a robust foundation for the study.

Table 1 shows the distribution of published articles by each research question from 1 January 2018, to 4 March 2025.

Table 2 lists sources for literature review articles pertinent to the specific research questions and topics.

5 Analysis of the selected materials

5.1 RQ1: Who are the key stakeholders in the seafood supply chain, and what is their role in authentication?

Although research on stakeholders in the seafood supply chain has a long history, variations in definitions exist due to differing research contexts. The study reviewed 34 selected articles and identified four key stakeholder sectors involved in seafood authentication: the production sector, the distribution sector, the market sector, and the governance and regulatory sector. Each stakeholder group plays a distinct but interdependent role in ensuring seafood authentication and maintaining the integrity of the seafood industry.

The production sector serves as the foundation of seafood authentication by ensuring the initial documentation of catch origin, species classification, and fishing methods before the distribution (Agarwal et al., 2024; Blandon et al., 2025; Chu and Pham, 2024; Dugyala et al., 2024; Ismail et al., 2024; Iue et al., 2022; Kittinger et al., 2021; Macusi et al., 2022; Patro et al., 2022; Schiller and Bailey, 2021; Travaille et al., 2019; Weitzman and Bailey, 2018; Yang et al., 2024). The production sector includes producers (Fishers and aquaculturists) and processors. The role of the producers is responsible for recording catch data, including species type, location, and fishing method. They ensure compliance with sustainability and traceability standards to prevent illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and provide accurate documentation for downstream traceability. The processors play a critical role in sorting, labelling, and processing seafood according to certification requirements. They implement tracking mechanisms to prevent species substitution and fraud and ensure compliance with food safety regulations.

The distribution sector ensures that seafood products retain their traceability and authenticity as they move along the supply chain (Agarwal et al., 2024; Blandon et al., 2025; Chea et al., 2023; Chu and Pham, 2024; Dugyala et al., 2024; Howson, 2020; Ismail et al., 2024; Longo et al., 2021; Macusi et al., 2022; Prompatanapak and Lopetcharat, 2020; Tokkozhina et al., 2023; Virdin et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2024). The distribution sector includes the distributors and retailers. The distributors are responsible for maintaining detailed product traceability records, verifying supplier documentation to prevent fraud, and ensuring compliance with import/export regulations. And the retailers are responsible for sourcing certified seafood from verified suppliers, providing accurate product labelling to ensure informed consumer choices, and educating consumers about sustainable seafood.

The market sector includes consumers and customers influencing demand for authenticated seafood (Agarwal et al., 2024; Blandon et al., 2025; Chea et al., 2023; Chu and Pham, 2024; Dugyala et al., 2024; Hopkins et al., 2024; Howson, 2020; Ismail et al., 2024; Iue et al., 2022; Kohne, 2019; Travaille et al., 2019; Vlachos et al., 2024; Weitzman and Bailey, 2018; Yang et al., 2024). The market sector includes retail and restaurant consumers and customers, who influence market trends through purchasing decisions. Increasing demand for traceable, sustainable, and ethically sourced seafood encourages industry-wide adoption of eco-certifications and traceability systems in authentication.

The governance and regulatory sector includes NGOs, governments, and private-sector entities, and it shapes the policy framework and industry best practices for seafood authentication (Agarwal et al., 2024; Al Mandhari et al., 2025; Anderson et al., 2021; Arton et al., 2018; Azizah et al., 2020; Bashir et al., 2018; Blandon et al., 2025; Callinan et al., 2022; Cannon et al., 2018; Chea et al., 2023; Hopkins et al., 2024; Ismail et al., 2024; Iue et al., 2022; Kohne, 2019; Macusi et al., 2022; Schiller and Bailey, 2021; She et al., 2023; Tatar et al., 2024; Weitzman and Bailey, 2018). The regulatory sector certifies and enforces compliance with sustainability and food safety standards in seafood authentication (Anderson et al., 2021; Burns et al., 2024; Macusi et al., 2022; Patro et al., 2022; Sparks et al., 2025; Teh et al., 2019; Tokkozhina et al., 2023; Weitzman and Bailey, 2018; Yang et al., 2024). The governance and regulatory sector includes non-governmental organizations (NGOs), governments, the private sector, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Fisheries Improvement Programs (FIPs). Their roles in authentication are NGOs that advocate for stricter regulations, monitor seafood fraud, and collaborate on authentication initiatives. Governments regulate the seafood industry through policies, labelling standards and enforcement measures. The private sector invests in authentication technologies and contributes to resource management policies. MSC establishes global certification standards for sustainable seafood. FIPs engage multiple stakeholders in sustainable fishery policy and compliance.

Figure 3 highlights the categories of the key stakeholders and their responsibilities in ensuring seafood transparency, traceability, compliance, and sustainability. Figure 3 shows that the seafood authentication process involves four key stakeholder sectors: the production sector, the distribution sector, the market sector, and the governance and regulatory sector. Each plays a crucial role in ensuring traceability, compliance, and sustainability within the seafood supply chain (Agarwal et al., 2024; Blandon et al., 2025). Collaboration between these key stakeholders is critical for ensuring supply chain transparency, regulatory enforcement, and consumer trust (Blandon et al., 2025). However, significant challenges remain, including regulatory inconsistencies across international markets and fragmented traceability systems that create compliance gaps. To address these challenges, future research should evaluate the effectiveness of blockchain-based traceability solutions in seafood authentication, including industry data to validate previous empirical studies concerning gauging the actual effectiveness of blockchain technology within these systems. The contribution of this would be harmonizing global regulatory frameworks to facilitate seamless compliance across jurisdictions, and enhancing digital authentication tools to improve industry-wide transparency and accountability will also be essential. These insights will be critical for developing improved authentication frameworks, mitigating fraud risks, and advancing sustainable seafood practices.

FIGURE 3

5.2 RQ2: What factors influence the adoption of blockchain technology by key stakeholders responsible for authentication in the seafood supply chain?

A review of 43 selected articles identifies technological, economic, regulatory, and organizational factors influencing blockchain adoption among key stakeholders in the seafood supply chain. Our review shows that blockchain adoption in seafood authentication is driven by enhanced traceability, financial efficiency, cost reduction, improved consumer trust, sustainability, decentralized trade, profitability, transparency, regulation, and security (Azevedo et al., 2023; Bharathi S et al., 2024; Callinan et al., 2022; Falcetti et al., 2025; Kamilaris et al., 2019; Kennedy and McEntire, 2019; Khanna et al., 2022; Lam, 2024; Mileti et al., 2022; Mumtaz et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2023; Okorie and Russell, 2022; Rogerson and Parry, 2020; Thompson and Rust, 2023; Tsolakis et al., 2023; Wong et al., 2020; Yavaprabhas et al., 2023). Blockchain facilitates real-time tracking, precise data sharing, reduced paperwork, cost savings, and improved collaboration (Callinan et al., 2022). Internet of Things (IoT) integration further enhances data immutability and reduces management costs (Bharathi S et al., 2024; Mumtaz et al., 2024). Additional benefits include increased profitability and optimized information management (Okorie and Russell, 2022). Environmental advantages include green traceability and carbon footprint reduction (Bharathi S et al., 2024; Jang et al., 2024; Kennedy and McEntire, 2019; Khanna et al., 2022). Blockchain also enhances supply chain visibility and data reliability (Gleadall et al., 2024; Rogerson and Parry, 2020), while trust in implementation remains a crucial factor (Nguyen et al., 2023; Yavaprabhas et al., 2023). Additionally, its role in food safety and contamination prevention reinforces regulatory compliance (Blakistone and Mavity, 2019; Nisar et al., 2024). Stakeholder Benefits of Blockchain Adoption: Producers and Processors: Improved traceability, sustainability, and profitability; Distributors and Retailers: Greater transparency, decentralized trade, and consumer trust; Regulators and Governance Bodies: Real-time tracking, fraud prevention, and compliance support.

However, several challenges hinder blockchain adoption, particularly for SMEs in developing regions. These include technological constraints, limited expertise, lack of resources, structural limitations, and educational gaps (Falcetti et al., 2025; Kamilaris et al., 2019; Okorie et al., 2022; Untal et al., 2025; Wong et al., 2020). Technical complexities include data-sharing inefficiencies, scalability issues, increased operational complexity, and lack of interoperability (Jang et al., 2024; Kshetri, 2018; Pandey et al., 2022; Saberi et al., 2019; Sengupta et al., 2022; Tian and Sarkis, 2023; Tsolakis et al., 2021, 2023; Virmani and Singh, 2024). The absence of standardized applications, policymakers’ unfamiliarity with blockchain, scalability issues, and data privacy concerns further exacerbate adoption barriers (Thompson and Rust, 2023; Yang et al., 2024). Competitive risks for wholesalers and resistance to transparency create additional obstacles (Thompson and Rust, 2023). Regulatory uncertainty and high implementation costs remain key deterrents (Josephson, 2017; Kamilaris et al., 2021; Meera et al., 2023; Saha et al., 2025; Tokkozhina et al., 2023). Coordination among supply chain actors presents further challenges regarding cost-benefit trade-offs (Al Mandhari et al., 2025; Ferreira et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2022). Encryption key transfer through smart contracts offers security solutions but is hindered by political, legal, and regulatory constraints (Dwivedi et al., 2020; Howson, 2020; Mumtaz et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024). Establishing universal benchmarks is essential for compliance and interoperability across the industry (Mileti et al., 2022; Ouled Abdallah et al., 2023; Stranieri et al., 2021).

A synthesis of these 43 articles shows that blockchain adoption in the seafood supply chain is influenced by technological, organizational, regulatory, and economic factors. Conceptual works highlight blockchain’s potential to enhance traceability, transparency, and sustainability through decentralized data systems, improving efficiency, trust, and regulatory compliance (Saberi et al., 2019; Kamilaris et al., 2019, 2021; Callinan et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2023; Ferreira et al., 2022; Tokkozhina et al., 2023; Yavaprabhas et al., 2023; Pandey et al., 2022; Howson, 2020; Falcetti et al., 2025; Gleadall et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2024). Empirical research confirms these benefits through surveys, interviews, and case analyses (Tian and Sarkis, 2023; Okorie and Russell, 2022; Jang et al., 2024), but reveals persistent barriers such as interoperability, cost, limited expertise, and policy uncertainty. Collectively, both streams emphasize that institutional support, standardization, and stakeholder collaboration are important for the adoption of blockchain technology.

5.3 RQ3: How does blockchain technology-enabled information impact consumer trust and loyalty?

Twelve selected articles identified the key mechanisms influencing consumer trust and loyalty in the seafood supply chain through blockchain-enabled information. Literature states that blockchain enhances consumer confidence by providing transparent, immutable, and real-time traceability data, allowing consumers to verify seafood products’ sustainability, authenticity, and quality (Bharathi S et al., 2024; Hao et al., 2024; Ouled Abdallah et al., 2023; Patel, 2024; Rani et al., 2024; Vasanthraj et al., 2024; Vazquez Melendez et al., 2024; Virmani and Singh, 2024).

Consumer trust is strengthened when blockchain provides verifiable, tamper-proof, and transparent supply chain data (see Figure 4). Figure 4 presents a structured framework illustrating how blockchain-enabled information enhances consumer trust and strengthens loyalty in the seafood supply chain.

FIGURE 4

Blockchain technology addresses seafood supply chain challenges by decentralizing data and giving key stakeholders control over data sharing (Honório et al., 2022). For example, blockchain technology’s decentralized and immutable ledger characteristics can improve data transparency and traceability throughout the seafood supply chain, addressing fraud, mislabeling, and sustainability issues. In addition, blockchain systems offer adaptability and effective responses to unexpected events, which further support supply chain resilience. Thus, blockchain technology is essential to building consumer trust and reducing risks such as data privacy breaches and cyberattacks. Ferreira et al. (2022) highlighted that transparent information sharing is a significant benefit of implementing blockchain technology in supply chains, with smart contracts playing a crucial role. They can significantly advance supply chain objectives by ensuring immutable data, fostering transparency, and improving operational efficiency while providing stakeholders with a secure and reliable environment. Studies by Anithadevi et al. (2023) and Tokkozhina et al. (2023) pointed out the importance of seafood products’ traceability in the supply chain to ensure credibility. Blockchain technology-enabled information can continuously and securely share transactions and flow records within the seafood supply chain. It enhances consumer trust and loyalty in the seafood supply chain. This capability supports data integrity and risk mitigation, thereby enhancing consumer trust and loyalty (Hao et al., 2024; Vasanthraj et al., 2024; Bharathi S et al., 2024). Achieving their full potential will require technical collaboration, data compliance, and thorough technology evaluation.

Blockchain technology is often described in the literature as enabling more secure sharing of transaction and flow records, which may reduce the risk of manipulation or unauthorized alterations in seafood authentication processes. Our literature review does not validate that current implementations actually accomplish these outcomes. However, the review framework (see Figure 4) contributes to future research on digital trust mechanisms by highlighting how blockchain technology could increase transparency and potentially enhance consumer confidence.

Empirical evidence further supports these conceptual insights. Studies across the food and seafood sectors demonstrate blockchain’s potential to strengthen trust and transparency in supply chain interactions (Bharathi S et al., 2024; Vasanthraj et al., 2024; Hao et al., 2024). Qualitative research indicates that blockchain-enabled information enhances transparency, and fosters trust among consumers, businesses, and investors (Bharathi S et al., 2024). Quantitative analyses reveal that blockchain implementation improves coordination and trust among supply chain actors, supporting more effective decision-making (Vasanthraj et al., 2024). Mixed-method findings also confirm that blockchain adoption increases traceability and consumer trust, positively shaping perceptions of food safety, quality, and naturalness, thereby enhancing customer satisfaction (Hao et al., 2024). Overall, these findings provide conceptual and empirical insights that inform future practical applications of blockchain-based information systems in seafood supply chains.

5.4 RQ4: What is the business benefit of blockchain technology solutions among fishmongers?

All ten articles selected for this research question examined the benefits of adopting blockchain technology in the seafood supply chain. Marikyan et al. (2021) emphasize that blockchain’s decentralized nature eliminates intermediaries, reducing costs and streamlining administrative processes. These characteristics help mitigate operational risks and fraud, making the supply chain more reliable. Additionally, blockchain’s decentralized nature can help lower business costs by streamlining administrative processes and reducing the need for intermediaries.

Ouled Abdallah et al. (2023) and Sengupta et al. (2022) discuss blockchain as a potential tool to enhance supply chain resilience, particularly in relation to perishability risks and price instability. These studies suggest that such applications may be relevant during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. By potentially improving transparency, addressing supply-demand mismatches, and promoting price fairness, blockchain is proposed as a way that could help mitigate risks like perishability and market inequalities, especially for fishmongers in developing countries. These features align with Figure 5’s emphasis on supply chain resilience and food safety as blockchain-enabled benefits. Nguyen et al. (2023) found that blockchain addresses transparency and traceability issues in Vietnam’s seafood industry by integrating DNA barcoding and satellite tracking, ensuring product authenticity and boosting consumer confidence. Tokkozhina et al. (2021) and Tsolakis et al. (2021) highlight that adopting blockchain technology in the seafood supply chain offers strategic advantages. As digitalization progresses globally, there is an increasing focus on enhancing efficiency and streamlining time-consuming processes (Alkatheeri and Ahmad, 2024; Hoang et al., 2024; Patil et al., 2024; Suali et al., 2024). Ensuring product provenance and safety is important to building consumer trust, and blockchain stands out as a leading disruptive technology in this area. These capabilities support mislabeling reduction, risk mitigation, and stronger brand reputation which are core business benefits for fishmongers. Figure 5 provides an overview of how blockchain-enabled features, such as data validity, transparency, traceability, cost efficiency, and food safety translate into operational and strategic advantages for fishmongers. These include lower operational costs, improved administrative efficiency, enhanced market positioning, and reduced mislabeling risks (Alkatheeri and Ahmad, 2024; Patil et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2023; Sengupta et al., 2022; Ouled Abdallah et al., 2023; Tokkozhina et al., 2021; Tsolakis et al., 2021; Hoang et al., 2024; Suali et al., 2024).

FIGURE 5

As the seafood industry undergoes digital transformation, blockchain adoption is emerging as a critical enabler for fishmongers to improve operational efficiency, ensure regulatory compliance, and strengthen sustainable sourcing. Building on these observations, blockchain technology is increasingly recognized as a valuable mechanism for enhancing transparency and traceability across the broader supply chain. Conceptual research highlights its decentralized and disintermediated architecture, which reduces intermediaries, lowers transaction costs, and mitigates operational risks (Marikyan et al., 2021). Empirical findings further demonstrate improvements in transparency, traceability, and cost efficiency, thereby strengthening competitiveness and brand reputation (Alkatheeri and Ahmad, 2024; Patil et al., 2024; Nguyen et al., 2023; Sengupta et al., 2022; Ouled Abdallah et al., 2023; Tokkozhina et al., 2021; Hoang et al., 2024; Suali et al., 2024). Despite these potential gains, practical adoption in developing countries’ fisheries remains limited due to technological, regulatory, and awareness constraints (Nguyen et al., 2023). Overall, the realization of blockchain’s contribution to a more transparent, resilient, and sustainable seafood supply chain can be viewed as a long-term business outcome rather than an immediate benefit.

6 Discussion

The overall aim of this study was to investigate factors limiting the adoption of blockchain-enabled traceability in the seafood supply chain and to suggest solutions that stakeholders can implement to facilitate its future integration and scalability of blockchain technology in the seafood supply chain.

The seafood supply chain involves multiple decentralized stakeholders with varying interests and roles, leading to challenges such as seafood fraud, mislabeling, species substitution, and illegal fishing. These issues pose substantial food safety risks by disrupting traceability systems and undermine consumer trust. Certification programs such as the MSC and FIPs play essential roles in seafood authentication; however, fragmented regulatory frameworks hinder their effectiveness and constrain the technological innovation required for industry transformation.

This literature review identifies and summarizes key stakeholders within four sectors: production, distribution, market, and the governance and regulatory sector. The production sector, including producers and processors, provides initial documentation of catch origin, species classification, and fishing methods, forming the foundation for seafood authentication. The distribution sector, which includes distributors and retailers, ensures product traceability and authenticity throughout the supply chain, significantly impacting consumer trust. The market sector, driven by consumer demand for traceable and sustainable seafood, indirectly shapes industry practices. Governance and regulatory entities, including NGOs, governments, MSC, and FIPs, develop and enforce policies ensuring seafood sustainability, transparency, and compliance, which are crucial for combating seafood fraud.

Given these challenges, blockchain technology has the potential to serve as a solution due to its inherent transparency, immutability, and decentralized structure. Smart contracts have been discussed as a potential means to automate transaction verification and stakeholder compliance (Vanditha et al., 2023), but real-world use in seafood supply chains is still limited. It may help reduce fraud, human errors, and administrative burdens, with possible gains in efficiency and profitability, but such benefits have not yet been widely validated (Tsolakis et al., 2021). Blockchain may help simplify certification and reduce intermediaries, but there is little evidence so far that these benefits extend to disadvantaged regions.

Nevertheless, blockchain adoption faces notable barriers for SMEs. These include high implementation costs, limited technical expertise, lack of unified standards, regulatory uncertainties, data privacy concerns, and resistance from stakeholders wary of competitive risks and confidentiality issues. SMEs, especially in developing regions, typically lack the resources or expertise to implement blockchain solutions effectively.

6.1 Why the adoption of blockchain-enabled traceability remains limited in the seafood supply chain

While traceability is essential for ensuring seafood authenticity and sustainability, our systematic review indicates that adoption across the global seafood industry remains limited. Previous studies indicate that fragmented governance structures, dispersed stakeholders, and conflicting economic incentives hinder data interoperability and coordinated action (Falcetti et al., 2025; Kamilaris et al., 2019; Okorie et al., 2022; Untal et al., 2025; Wong et al., 2020; Jang et al., 2024; Kshetri, 2018; Pandey et al., 2022; Saberi et al., 2019; Tian and Sarkis, 2023; Tsolakis et al., 2021, 2023; Virmani and Singh, 2024; Thompson and Rust, 2023; Ferreira et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2022). For example, Tsolakis et al. (2021) state that fragmented governance structures, arising from multiple certification schemes, inconsistent regulatory requirements, and weak institutional coordination, undermine data standardization and create uncertainty in traceability implementation. Saberi et al. (2019) note that dispersed stakeholders hinder adoption since the seafood supply chain involves numerous independent actors with varying digital capabilities and limited incentives to collaborate on shared data platforms. In the study by Ferreira et al. (2022), the authors explain that conflicting economic incentives hinder data sharing, as upstream producers often bear the technological and financial costs of blockchain adoption while downstream actors capture most of the market and reputational benefits. This structural fragmentation prevents the seamless flow of information, limiting the interoperability required for effective blockchain technology adoption.

To synthesize, Table 3 summarizes the key bottlenecks that constrain blockchain-enabled traceability adoption in the seafood supply chain, together with their representative issues and underlying definitions.

As shown in Table 3, these bottlenecks span technical, institutional, and market dimensions. They collectively illustrate how structural fragmentation, limited SME capacity, and unclear governance mechanisms … continue to inhibit interoperability and the adoption of blockchain technology in the seafood industry. Furthermore, SMEs, which form the backbone of the seafood industry, often lack financial resources, digital expertise, and technical infrastructure, making it difficult for them to adopt blockchain-enabled systems (Falcetti et al., 2025; Kamilaris et al., 2019; Okorie et al., 2022; Untal et al., 2025; Wong et al., 2020). Their dependence on third-party suppliers and limited digital training further exacerbate operational barriers (Jang et al., 2024; Mumtaz et al., 2024). Technically, cross-platform interoperability remains weak. Inconsistent data models, regional formats, and overlapping certification systems such as MSC and FIPs prevent cross-platform integration and scalability (Kshetri, 2018; Saberi et al., 2019; Tsolakis et al., 2021; Pandey et al., 2022).

Institutionally, governance uncertainties, such as unclear node control, cost-sharing responsibilities, and liability attribution, undermine stakeholder trust and discourage collaboration (Tsolakis et al., 2021; Ferreira et al., 2022; Kumar et al., 2022). From a business perspective, the slow digital transformation of SMEs constrains their readiness for blockchain technology adoption (Nguyen et al., 2023; Falcetti et al., 2025). From a market perspective, consumer price sensitivity reduces seafood industry incentives to adopt costly traceability technologies (Thompson and Rust, 2023; Yavaprabhas et al., 2023).

Therefore, despite its technical advantages, blockchain-enabled seafood traceability remains at the developing stage of adoption, constrained by enduring structural fragmentation, limited SME capacity, and weak institutional coordination. To move beyond these limitations, stakeholders across governance, industry, and market domains should collectively transform existing bottlenecks into coordinated enablers of a large-scale, interoperable traceability blockchain-enabled system in the seafood supply chain.

To move beyond these structural bottlenecks and bridge academic findings with industry practice, Table 4 presents a practice focused readiness checklist summarizing key criteria that organizations should evaluate before adopting blockchain-enabled traceability system solutions. This table offers a diagnostic framework for assessing technological, governance, and organizational preparedness within the seafood supply chain.

As shown in Table 4, the readiness of seafood industry stakeholders depends not only on technological capability but also on governance alignment, economic incentives, and institutional oversight. Future studies could apply this checklist as an evaluative tool to assess blockchain preparedness across diverse supply chain contexts and regulatory environments, thereby strengthening the link between academic research and practical technology adoption.

6.2 How stakeholders can enable blockchain adoption in the future seafood industry

More recent studies published after 2024 indicate an emerging shift from problem identification toward solution-oriented and implementation-focused approaches, marking a transition from barriers to enablers in blockchain-enabled seafood traceability. Overcoming the barriers identified above requires coordinated strategies that align governance frameworks, technological standards, and market incentives. Through such collaboration, fragmented pilot projects can be transformed into scalable operational systems. In this context, the following section outlines how different stakeholders across production, distribution, market, and governance and regulatory sector can collectively transform fragmented initiatives into scalable traceability infrastructures in the seafood industry.

The production side can strengthen first-mile data integrity by transitioning from manual data entry to IoT-enabled automated capture, a shift widely recognized as essential in recent blockchain supply-chain research (Daniel and Zaib, 2025). Integrating temperature, location, and handling sensors at harvesting, processing, and cold storage stages reduces human error and limits opportunities for data manipulation, directly addressing the upstream vulnerabilities highlighted in the literature. Producers can further align their internal Enterprise Resource Planning systems with Digital Product Passport (DPP) compliant schemas to ensure data consistency across borders. Technology suppliers play a critical role here by improving first-mile data capture and providing subsidized devices and digital-literacy support for SMEs, thereby lowering adoption barriers for smaller actors (Agarwal et al., 2024; Ismail et al., 2023; Pandey et al., 2022; Saha et al., 2025; Zhong et al., 2024).

Regarding distribution, actors such as exporters, cold-chain operators, and logistics providers can enhance data continuity by harmonizing documentation workflows, deploying interoperable IoT devices, and using smart contracts to automate custody-transfer verification. Ensuring interoperability between logistics systems, certification databases, and customs platforms is essential to mitigate fragmentation risks during cross-border movements. Technology suppliers should therefore align blockchain platforms with DPP data standards to facilitate uninterrupted information exchange along global seafood routes (Mileti et al., 2022; Ouled Abdallah et al., 2023; Stranieri et al., 2021).

The market side should reinforce adoption by establishing procurement mandates that make verifiable digital traceability a precondition for supplier approval. Importers and retailers can convert traceability from a compliance burden into a competitive advantage by integrating DPP-enabled verification into purchasing decisions, marketing claims, and consumer-facing QR interfaces. Demand-driven procurement not only strengthens incentives for upstream actors to maintain accurate data but also accelerates standard diffusion across value chains (Anderson et al., 2021; Schiller and Bailey, 2021; Thompson and Rust, 2023; Travaille et al., 2019).

Finally, governance and regulatory authorities can create a strong compliance pull by embedding verifiable traceability requirements into regional policy frameworks such as the DPP. Regulatory authorities can define interoperable data standards, clarify liability for incorrect or missing records, and introduce cross-border guidelines for integrating DPP requirements into export operations (Lövdahl et al., 2023; Mileti et al., 2022; Stranieri et al., 2021). National industry bodies—such as the Norwegian Seafood Council—can further expand institutional capacity by coordinating producers, exporters, and technology suppliers, and by issuing consortium governance templates that specify node control, decision rights, cost allocation, and audit procedures (Ferreira et al., 2022; Howson, 2020; Mathisen, 2018; Norwegian Seafood Trust Ed, 2023; Virdin et al., 2022; Woldseth and Kvernelv, 2021). Evidence from failed initiatives such as TradeLens demonstrates that blockchain networks collapse without shared governance, aligned incentives, and sustained cross-firm participation, underscoring the centrality of governance design in enabling scale.

Collectively, these stakeholder actions illustrate how IoT-supported data integrity, regulatory alignment, institutional coordination, and technological standardization interact to shift blockchain-enabled traceability from fragmented pilots toward scalable, production-level systems in the seafood industry (Rauniyar et al., 2023; Saberi et al., 2019; Tokkozhina et al., 2023; Tsolakis et al., 2023; Virmani and Singh, 2024; Wang et al., 2024).

Blockchain technology can provide key stakeholders with tools to verify seafood authenticity through immutable data records across the supply chain. Smart contracts reduce operational intervention and human errors, potentially enhancing efficiency and consumer trust. Adoption of blockchain can strengthen transparency, promote sustainability, and enhance competitiveness in meeting rising consumer expectations for safe and responsibly sourced seafood. Blockchain technology adoption helps stakeholders improve transparency, build consumer loyalty, and achieve sustained competitive differentiation.

Governance and regulation can create a strong compliance pull by aligning the requirements for structured digital product information with regional policy frameworks, such as the DPP, introduced under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (Council of the European Union, 2024). With the first waves of implementation expected around 2026 for priority product groups, regulatory emphasis on standardized and interoperable traceability data is increasing across export-oriented and sustainability-sensitive supply chains, particularly within EU governance environments. Regulatory authorities can define interoperable data standards, clarify liability for incorrect or missing records, and introduce cross-border guidelines for integrating DPP requirements into export operations (Lövdahl et al., 2023). Northern European fisheries have also been reported as experimenting with blockchain adoption to address mislabeling and regulatory oversight (Kouhizadeh et al., 2020; Kringelum et al., 2021; Sogn-Grundvåg et al., 2021). Collectively, these initiatives illustrate exploratory and pre-implementation efforts rather than empirically validated improvements, as their actual effectiveness in enhancing compliance and transparency remains to be established. To illustrate how these enabling mechanisms unfold in practice, countries such as Norway and Denmark have initiated pilot projects to integrate blockchain for seafood traceability (Mathisen, 2018; Norwegian Seafood Trust (Ed.), 2023; Sogn-Grundvåg et al., 2021; Woldseth and Kvernelv, 2021).

To contextualize the transition from barriers (2018–2023) to enablers (2024–2025), Table 5 illustrates how the Nordic seafood ecosystem has evolved into an early-stage experimental testbed for DPP implementation. As summarized in Table 5, the legally binding DPP framework under ESPR has created anticipatory compliance incentives among Nordic seafood exporters, due to their strong integration into EU sustainability policy environments, prompting early alignment among Nordic actors due to export dependence and regulatory readiness. Building on this foundation, Table 5 demonstrates how policy alignment, data standardization, and institutional collaboration are transforming structural barriers into practical enablers. Importantly, early Nordic seafood exporters are engaging in DPP-referenced or anticipatory digital traceability practices, illustrating how coordinated stakeholder action can proactively align with emerging EU digital sustainability frameworks and translate regulatory direction into scalable, trustworthy, and interoperable blockchain-enabled traceability systems.

6.3 Limitations and future studies

The findings of this systematic review must be interpreted in light of its inherent limitations. First, not all included studies were suitable for calculating statistical effect sizes, formal risk of bias assessment, reporting bias assessment, and certainty assessment due to the diverse range of conceptualizations and methods. However, including studies with different academic approaches and not restricting certain ones may also be considered a strength of this review.

Second, conducting a systematic review with a substantial number of articles could lead to human errors compared to fewer articles. However, this risk was reduced by following the PRISMA guidelines, using automated tools such as search engine filters and the Excel script, and by cross-validating findings through multiple authors. This review focuses on synthesizing academic studies of blockchain in seafood supply chains. It does not include industry adoption data, which is still scarce (Tsolakis et al., 2023; Nguyen et al., 2023; Bharathi S et al., 2024). Future research could explore these relationships. Future research should further refine the stakeholder classification and investigate their role and impact throughout the seafood supply chain through detailed case studies. Quantitative studies are needed to investigate the technical, economic, and social factors influencing blockchain adoption. In addition, qualitative studies can add knowledge by applying in-depth studies of what impacts adoption of blockchain in the seafood industry.

This systematic review study also provides a structured research approach to link theoretical frameworks and practical blockchain technology adoption in seafood authentication, providing valuable insights for stakeholders and policymakers. Future research should quantitatively examine the impact of blockchain on consumer trust and loyalty, and this can be achieved using consumer surveys or experimental designs. Such studies could also involve cross-cultural or cross-market comparisons, since this type of evidence is, based on our literature review, currently lacking and is needed to contextualize qualitative insights. Another future research is empirical examination of blockchain implementation in real supply chain contexts, to understand whether and how stakeholders can utilize blockchain to achieve competitive advantages, profitability gains, and operational efficiency. Those issues are less understood and require validation. Future research should prioritize the development of data verification mechanisms and the establishment of internationally standardized regulatory frameworks to facilitate the secure and transparent integration of blockchain technology within the seafood industry.

7 Conclusion

This study systematically analyzed existing research on blockchain technology adoption in the seafood supply chain, clarifying key stakeholders and their roles in seafood authentication. The findings show that while blockchain-enabled information may enhance transparency, traceability, and consumer trust, adoption remains limited due to persistent structural fragmentation, inconsistent regulatory and data standards, technological complexities, and the constrained financial and digital capacity of SMEs. These barriers are most evident in first-mile data capture, interoperability gaps across certification and logistics systems, and unclear governance arrangements related to decision rights, liability, and cost-sharing. Addressing these challenges requires coordinated strategies across production, distribution, market, and regulatory domains. Examples include IoT-supported data collection, harmonized documentation workflows, demand-driven procurement mandates, and alignment with emerging frameworks such as the DPP. Early Nordic initiatives illustrate how policy alignment and institutional coordination may gradually convert these bottlenecks into enabling conditions, although their outcomes remain exploratory and require empirical validation. Future research should include quantitative analyses, longitudinal and real-world case studies, and cross-market comparative studies that are needed to assess actual operational impacts, business benefits for fishmongers, and downstream effects on consumer trust and loyalty. Strengthening this evidence base is essential for supporting the evolution of a transparent, scalable, and trustworthy seafood traceability ecosystem.

References

• 1

  AgarwalU.RishiwalV.ShibleeM.YadavM.TanwarS. (2024). Blockchain-based intelligent tracing of food grain crops from production to delivery. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl.17 (6), 3722–3749. 10.1007/s12083-024-01780-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Al MandhariW. A. M.Al JufailiS.Al BusaidiM.DuttaS. (2025). Seafood traceability system: a comprehensive assessment of seafood establishments in the Sultanate of Oman. Aquac. Fish.Available online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468550X24001631.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AlkatheeriH.AhmadS. Z. (2024). Examining blockchain adoption determinants and supply chain performance: an empirical study in the logistics and supply chain management industry. J. Model. Manag.19 (5), 1566–1591. 10.1108/jm2-08-2023-0186

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  American Society for Quality (2024). International standard providing guidance on social responsibility. What are stakeholders?. Available online at: https://asq.org/quality-resources/stakeholders.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AndersonC. M.Himes-CornellA.PitaC.ArtonA.FavretM.AverillD.et al (2021). Social and economic outcomes of fisheries certification: characterizing pathways of change in canned fish markets. Front. Mar. Sci.8, 791085. 10.3389/fmars.2021.791085

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AnithadeviN.AjayM.AkalyaV.Dharun KrishnaN.Vishnu AdityaaS. (2023). “Blockchain-based agri-food supply chain management,” in Proceedings of the international conference on paradigms of computing, communication and data sciences. Editors YadavR. P.NandaS. J.RanaP. S.LimM.-H. (Singapore: Springer Nature), 489–501. 10.1007/978-981-19-8742-7_40

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ArtonA.LeimanA.PetrokofskyG.ToonenH.NeatF.LongoC. S. (2018). What do we know about the impacts of the marine Stewardship Council seafood ecolabelling program? A systematic map protocol. Environ. Evid.7 (1), 29. 10.1186/s13750-018-0143-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AzevedoP.GomesJ.RomãoM. (2023). Supply chain traceability using blockchain. Operations Manag. Res.16 (3), 1359–1381. 10.1007/s12063-023-00359-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AzizahF. F. N.IshiharaH.ZabalaA.SakaiY.SuantikaG.YagiN. (2020). Diverse perceptions on eco-certification for shrimp aquaculture in Indonesia. Sustainability12 (22), 9387. 10.3390/su12229387

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BashirK. M. I.KimJ.-S.MohibbullahM.SohnJ. H.ChoiJ.-S. (2018). Strategies for improving the competitiveness of Korean seafood companies in the overseas halal food market. J. Islamic Mark.10 (2), 606–632. 10.1108/jima-03-2018-0056

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BharathiS. V.PerdanaA.VivekanandT. S.VenkateshV. G.ChengY.ShiY. (2024). From ocean to table: examining the potential of Blockchain for responsible sourcing and sustainable seafood supply chains. Prod. Plan. & Control, 1–20. 10.1080/09537287.2024.2321291

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BlakistoneB.MavityS. (2019). “Seafood,” in Food traceability: from binders to blockchain. Editors McEntireJ.KennedyA. W. (Springer International Publishing), 97–111. 10.1007/978-3-030-10902-8_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BlandonA.JonellM.IshiharaH.ZabalaA. (2025). What does “sustainable seafood” mean to seafood system actors in Japan and Sweden?Ambio54, 1010–1025. 10.1007/s13280-024-02122-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BurnsP.PolidoroB.JardimE.McElroyD.McGregorE.WoodN. (2024). Defining best practice in global stakeholder consultations: lessons learned from the Marine stewardship Council’s fishery standard review. Mar. Policy167, 106238. 10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106238

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  CallinanC.VegaA.ClohessyT.HeaslipG. (2022). Blockchain adoption factors, enablers and barriers in fisheries supply chain: preliminary findings from a systematic literature review. J. Br. Blockchain Assoc.Available online at: https://harisportal.hanken.fi/sv/publications/blockchain-adoption-factors-enablers-and-barriers-in-fisheries-su.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  CannonJ.SousaP.KataraI.VeigaP.SpearB.BeveridgeD.et al (2018). Fishery improvement projects: performance over the past decade. Mar. Policy97, 179–187. 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  CawthornD.BaillieC.MarianiS. (2018). Generic names and mislabeling conceal high species diversity in global fisheries markets. Conserv. Lett.11 (5), e12573. 10.1111/conl.12573

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  CheaR.AhsanD.García-LorenzoI.TehL. (2023). Fish consumption patterns and value chain analysis in north-western Cambodia. Fish. Res.263, 106677. 10.1016/j.fishres.2023.106677

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  ChuT. T.PhamT. T. T. (2024). Vertical coordination in agri-food supply chain and blockchain: a proposed framework solution for Vietnamese cashew nut business. Regional Sci. Policy & Pract.16 (3), 12576. 10.1111/rsp3.12576

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Collinsdictionary (2024). Collins online dictionary-Definition of ‘fishmonger. Collins. Available online at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fishmonger.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Council of the European Union, E. P (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for sustainable products, amending Directive (EU) 2020/1828 and Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 and repealing Directive 2009/125/EC (text with EEA relevance). Available online at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1781/oj.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  DanezisG. P.TsagkarisA. S.CaminF.BrusicV.GeorgiouC. A. (2016). Food authentication: techniques, trends & emerging approaches. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem.85, 123–132.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  DanielJ.ZaibJ. (2025). “Supply chains and blockchain,” in The palgrave handbook of blockchain technology for business. Editor SarkisJ. (Switzerland: Springer Nature), 1–26. 10.1007/978-3-031-76014-3_9-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  DuanY.ZhuQ. (2024). Blockchain empowerment: enhancing consumer trust and outreach through supply chain transparency. Int. J. Prod. Res.63, 1–25. 10.1080/00207543.2024.2434951

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  DugyalaN. R.DeepthiR.SornalakshmiK. (2024). “Blockchain based architectural model for certification in Indian fisheries export,” in 2024 15th international conference on computing communication and networking technologies (ICCCNT), 1–7. Available online at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10725022/.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  DwivediS. K.AminR.VollalaS. (2020). Blockchain based secured information sharing protocol in supply chain management system with key distribution mechanism. J. Inf. Secur. Appl.54, 102554. 10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  FalcettiI. P.Lago da SilvaA.QueirozM. M. (2025). Amalgamating 4.0 technologies and traceability: exploring business value in food chains. Benchmarking An Int. J.Available online at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/bij-08-2024-0641/full/html.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  FerreiraJ. C.MartinsA. L.TokkozhinaU.HelgheimB. I. (2022). “Fish control process and traceability for value creation using blockchain technology,”. Innovations in bio-inspired computing and applications. Editors AbrahamA.MadureiraA. M.KaklauskasA.GandhiN.BajajA.MudaA. K.et al (Springer International Publishing), 419, 761–773. 10.1007/978-3-030-96299-9_72

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  GalvezJ. F.MejutoJ. C.Simal-GandaraJ. (2018). Future challenges on the use of blockchain for food traceability analysis. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem.107, 222–232. 10.1016/j.trac.2018.08.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  GleadallI.BarkaiA.LajbnerZ.McIntyreP.MoustahfidH.OlsenP.et al (2024). Sustainable seafood: advances in traceability, assessment, monitoring and resource management. Afr. J. Mar. Sci.46 (4), 239–245. 10.2989/1814232X.2024.2425709

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HaoF.GuoY.ZhangC.ChonK. (2024). Blockchain= better food? The adoption of blockchain technology in food supply chain. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag.36 (10), 3340–3360. 10.1108/ijchm-06-2023-0752

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HenriksenH. Z.ThapaD.ElbannaA. (2021). Sustainable development goals in IS research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst.33 (2), 3.

  • Google Scholar

• 33

  HoangT.BellJ.HiepP. H.AutryC. W. (2024). The sustainable development of rural-to-urban food supply chains in developing nations. Int. J. Logist. Manag.35 (1), 158–186. 10.1108/ijlm-02-2022-0072

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  HonórioT.ReisC. I.OliveiraM.MaximianoM. (2022). “Building trust with a contact tracing application: a blockchain approach,”. Innovations in bio-inspired computing and applications. Editors AbrahamA.MadureiraA. M.KaklauskasA.GandhiN.BajajA.MudaA. K.et al (Springer International Publishing), 419, 517–526. 10.1007/978-3-030-96299-9_49

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  HopkinsC. R.RobertsS. I.CaveenA. J.GrahamC.BurnsN. M. (2024). Improved traceability in seafood supply chains is achievable by minimising vulnerable nodes in processing and distribution networks. Mar. Policy159, 105910. 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105910

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  HowsonP. (2020). Building trust and equity in marine conservation and fisheries supply chain management with blockchain. Mar. Policy115, 103873. 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103873

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  IBM Blockchain (2024). What is blockchain technology?Available online at: https://www.ibm.com/topics/blockchain.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  IsmailS.RezaH.SalamehK.Kashani ZadehH.VasefiF. (2023). Toward an intelligent blockchain ioT-enabled fish supply chain: a review and conceptual framework. Sensors23 (11), 5136. 10.3390/s23115136

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  IsmailS.NoumanM.RezaH.VasefiF.ZadehH. K. (2024). A blockchain-based fish supply chain framework for maintaining fish quality and authenticity. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing. Available online at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10584153/.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  IueM.MakinoM.AsariM. (2022). The development of “Blue Seafood Guide,” a sustainable seafood rating program, and its implication in Japan. Mar. Policy137, 104945. 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104945

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  JangH.-W.JungH. S.ChoM. (2024). Blockchain adoption in the food and beverage industry from a behavioral reasoning perspective: moderating roles of supply chain partnerships. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol.15 (1), 138–155. 10.1108/jhtt-01-2023-0020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Javatpoint (2021). Information definition. Available online at: https://www.javatpoint.com/information-definition.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  JohnK. L. (2016). Theoretical framework of customer loyalty towards mobile phone services. Available online at: https://www.shanlax.com/wp-content/uploads/SIJ_ASH_V3_N4_016.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  JosephsonD. B. (2017). “Seafood,” in Volatile compounds in foods and beverages (Routledge), 179–202. Available online at: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9780203734285-6/seafood-david-josephson.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  KamilarisA.FontsA.Prenafeta-Bold\acute\nuF. X. (2019). The rise of blockchain technology in agriculture and food supply chains. Trends Food Sci. & Technol.91, 640–652. 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.034

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  KamilarisA.ColeI. R.Prenafeta-BoldúF. X. (2021). “Blockchain in agriculture,” in Food technology disruptions (Elsevier), 247–284. Available online at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128214701000033.

  • Google Scholar

• 47

  KennedyA. W.McEntireJ. (2019). “Connecting the dots with whole chain traceability,” in Food traceability. Editors McEntireJ.KennedyA. W. (Springer International Publishing), 181–192. 10.1007/978-3-030-10902-8_12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  KhannaT.NandP.BaliV. (2022). “Measuring the impact of blockchain-based supply chain traceability systems on consumer trust,”. Advancements in interdisciplinary research. Editors SugumaranV.UpadhyayD.SharmaS. (Switzerland: Springer Nature), 1738, 102–112. 10.1007/978-3-031-23724-9_10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  KittingerJ. N.BernardM.FinkbeinerE.MurphyE.ObregonP.KlingerD. H.et al (2021). Applying a jurisdictional approach to support sustainable seafood. Conservation Sci. Pract.3 (5), e386. 10.1111/csp2.386

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  KohneR. (2019). Would further marine stewardship council sustainable certification improve supply chain profitability in Australian fisheries?Australas. Agribus. Rev.27 (1673-2019–3370), 1–23.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  KouhizadehM.ZhuQ.SarkisJ. (2020). Blockchain and the circular economy: potential tensions and critical reflections from practice. Prod. Plan. & Control31 (11–12), 950–966. 10.1080/09537287.2019.1695925

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  KringelumL. B.GjerdingA. N.LøkkeS.PizzolM.TsiulinS.ReinauK. H.et al (2021). Blockchain in maritime industries. Available online at: https://vbn.aau.dk/files/435194053/BusinessWhiteArticle_BlockchaininMaritimeIndustries.pdf.

  • Google Scholar

• 53

  KroetzK.LuqueG. M.GephartJ. A.JardineS. L.LeeP.Chicojay MooreK.et al (2020). Consequences of seafood mislabeling for marine populations and fisheries management. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.117 (48), 30318–30323. 10.1073/pnas.2003741117

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  KshetriN. (2018). Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. Int. J. Inf. Manag.39, 80–89. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.12.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  KumarA.PaulM.UpadhyayP. (2021). From physical food security to digital food security. Delivering value through blockchain. Scand. J. Inf. Syst.33 (2), 5.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  KumarA.SrivastavaS. K.SinghS. (2022). How blockchain technology can be a sustainable infrastructure for the agrifood supply chain in developing countries. J. Glob. Operations Strategic Sourc.15 (3), 380–405. 10.1108/JGOSS-08-2021-0058

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  LamT. (2024). Transparency requirements after the pandemic: traceability information, information usefulness and trust. Industrial Manag. & Data Syst.124 (10), 2965–2988. 10.1108/imds-03-2024-0171

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Leahy (2021). Revealed-seafood-happening-on-a-vast-global-scale. Available online at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/15/revealed-seafood-happening-on-a-vast-global-scale.

  • Google Scholar

• 59

  LeiC. F.NgaiE. W. (2023). Blockchain from the information systems perspective: literature review, synthesis, and directions for future research. Inf. & Manag.60, 103856. 10.1016/j.im.2023.103856

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  LongoC. S.BuckleyL.GoodS. D.GorhamT. M.KoernerL.LeesS.et al (2021). A perspective on the role of eco-certification in eliminating illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Front. Ecol. Evol.9, 637228. 10.3389/fevo.2021.637228

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  LövdahlJ.HallstedtS. I.SchulteJ. (2023). Implications of EU instruments on company capabilities to design more sustainable solutions–product Environmental Footprint and Digital product Passport. Proc. Des. Soc.3, 2245–2254. 10.1017/pds.2023.225

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  MacusiE. D.MoralesI. D. G.MacusiE. S.PanchoA.DigalL. N. (2022). Impact of closed fishing season on supply, catch, price and the fisheries market chain. Mar. Policy138, 105008. 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  MarikyanD.PapagiannidisS.RanaO.RanjanR. (2021). “Blockchain in a business model: exploring benefits and risks,”. Responsible AI and analytics for an ethical and inclusive digitized society. Editors DennehyD.GrivaA.PouloudiN.DwivediY. K.PappasI.MäntymäkiM. (Springer International Publishing), 12896, 555–566. 10.1007/978-3-030-85447-8_46

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  MarikyanD.PapagiannidisS.RanaO. F.RanjanR. (2022). Blockchain adoption: a study of cognitive factors underpinning decision making. Comput. Hum. Behav.131, 107207. 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107207

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Martínez-CorderoF. J.DelgadilloT. S.Sanchez-ZazuetaE.CaiJ. (2021). Tilapia aquaculture in mexico-assessment with a focus on social and economic performance. Food & Agriculture Org. Available online at: https://books.google.com/books?hl=no&lr=&id=rEAgEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=%22fishmongers%22+%22business+benefits%22&ots=8C4MqglxSt&sig=nzJvubABDkh3RJKTdIXZxk6ueNI.

  • Google Scholar

• 66

  MathisenM. (2018). The application of blockchain technology in Norwegian fish supply chains-a case study [Master’s Thesis, NTNU]. Available online at: https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnu-xmlui/handle/11250/2561323.

  • Google Scholar

• 67

  MeeraM. S.DeepankarC.RajuT. B.HaldiyaJ. (2023). Barriers towards blockchain adoption in seafood exports. Sustain. Operations Comput.4, 192–199. 10.1016/j.susoc.2023.12.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  MiletiA.ArduiniD.WatsonG.GiangrandeA. (2022). Blockchain traceability in trading biomasses obtained with an integrated multi-trophic aquaculture. Sustainability15 (1), 767. 10.3390/su15010767

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  MumtazU. U.BergeyP.LetchN. (2024). Assessing the role of blockchain technology for marine bunkering operations–A case study of task technology fit. Mar. Policy159, 105909. 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105909

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  NguyenL. H. T.KimJ.AtkinsonB.WoodJ.JangH. (2023). “The use of blockchain in vietnam’s global fishery supply chain management,” in Innovation-driven business and sustainability in the tropics. Editors EijdenbergE. L.MukherjeeM.WoodJ. (Singapore: Springer Nature), 53–70. 10.1007/978-981-99-2909-2_4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  NisarU.ZhangZ.WoodB. P.AhmadS.EllahiE.Ul HaqS. I.et al (2024). Unlocking the potential of blockchain technology in enhancing the fisheries supply chain: an exploration of critical adoption barriers in China. Sci. Rep.14 (1), 10167. 10.1038/s41598-024-59167-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Norwegian Seafood Trust (2023). in Norwegian seafood trust and the technology companies Atea and IBM, offer a tracking service that tracks the entire value chain of the fish, from the moment the egg hatches until the fish enters the cage, is slaughtered, transported, processed and sold. Available online at: https://norwegianseafoodtrust.no/.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  OkorieO.RussellJ. D. (2022). “Exploring the risks of blockchain and circular economy initiatives in food supply chains: a hybrid model practice framework,”. Sustainable design and manufacturing. Editors ScholzS. G.HowlettR. J.SetchiR. (Singapore: Springer), 262, 290–303. 10.1007/978-981-16-6128-0_28

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  OkorieO.RussellJ.JinY.TurnerC.WangY.CharnleyF. (2022). Removing barriers to Blockchain use in circular food supply chains: practitioner views on achieving operational effectiveness. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain5, 100087. 10.1016/j.clscn.2022.100087

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Ouled AbdallahN.FakhfakhF.FakhfakhF. (2023). “Overview of blockchain-based seafood supply chain management,”. Intelligent systems design and applications. Editors AbrahamA.PllanaS.CasalinoG.MaK.BajajA. (Switzerland: Springer Nature), 717, 71–80. 10.1007/978-3-031-35510-3_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  PageM. J.MoherD.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.et al (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj372, n160. Available online at: https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n160.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  PandeyV.PantM.SnaselV. (2022). Blockchain technology in food supply chains: review and bibliometric analysis. Technol. Soc.69, 101954. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101954

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  PardoM. Á.JiménezE.ViðarssonJ. R.ÓlafssonK.ÓlafsdóttirG.DaníelsdóttirA. K.et al (2018). DNA barcoding revealing mislabeling of seafood in European mass caterings. Food control.92, 7–16. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.04.044

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  PatelK. (2024). “Revolutionizing customer experience: integrating blockchain with AR and VR in retail,” in Augmenting retail reality, part B: blockchain, AR, VR, and AI (Emerald Publishing Limited), 1–22. Available online at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-83608-708-320241003/full/html.

  • Google Scholar

• 80

  PatilK.GargV.GabaldonJ.PatilH.NiranjanS.HawkinsT. (2024). Firm performance in digitally integrated supply chains: a combined perspective of transaction cost economics and relational exchange theory. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag.37 (2), 381–413. 10.1108/jeim-09-2022-0335

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  PatroP. K.JayaramanR.SalahK.YaqoobI. (2022). Blockchain-based traceability for the fishery supply chain. IEEE Access10, 81134–81154. 10.1109/access.2022.3196162

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  PrompatanapakA.LopetcharatK. (2020). Managing changes and risk in seafood supply chain: a case study from Thailand. Aquaculture525, 735318. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735318

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  RabbyF.ChimhunduR.HassanR. (2022). “Blockchain technology transforms digital marketing by growing consumer trust,” in Transformations through blockchain technology. Editors IdreesS. M.NowostawskiM. (Springer International Publishing), 265–289. 10.1007/978-3-030-93344-9_12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  RaniP.SharmaP.GuptaI. (2024). Toward a greener future: a survey on sustainable blockchain applications and impact. J. Environ. Manag.354, 120273. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120273

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  RauniyarK.WuX.GuptaS.ModgilS.KumarA. (2023). Digitizing global supply chains through blockchain. Prod. Plan. & Control35, 1–22. 10.1080/09537287.2023.2189614

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  RemmeA.-M. R.StangeS.-M.FagerstrømA.LasradoL. A. (2022). Blockchain-enabled sustainability labeling in the fashion industry. Int. Conf. Enterp. Inf. Syst./ProjMAN - Int. Conf. Proj. Manag./HCist - Int. Conf. Health Soc. Care Inf. Syst. Technol. 2021196, 280–287. 10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  RogersonM.ParryG. C. (2020). Blockchain: case studies in food supply chain visibility. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J.25 (5), 601–614. 10.1108/scm-08-2019-0300

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  SaberiS.KouhizadehM.SarkisJ.ShenL. (2019). Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res.57 (7), 2117–2135. 10.1080/00207543.2018.1533261

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  SahaA.RautR.KumarM. (2025). Digital technology adoption challenges in the agri-food supply chain from the perspective of attaining sustainable development goals. Int. J. Logist. Manag.36 (2), 556–588. 10.1108/IJLM-09-2023-0412

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  SchillerL.BaileyM. (2021). Rapidly increasing eco‐certification coverage transforming management of world’s tuna fisheries. Fish Fish.22 (3), 592–604. 10.1111/faf.12539

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  SchmidtM. (2024). Business benefits. Bus. Benefits. Available online at: https://www.business-case-analysis.com/business-benefit.html.

  • Google Scholar

• 92

  SenguptaT.NarayanamurthyG.MoserR.PereiraV.BhattacharjeeD. (2022). Disruptive technologies for achieving supply chain resilience in COVID-19 era: an implementation case study of satellite imagery and blockchain technologies in fish supply chain. Inf. Syst. Front.24 (4), 1107–1123. 10.1007/s10796-021-10228-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  SheS.ZhuJ.YiK.WangX. (2023). Active response from managers: green marine supply chain empathic response mechanism. Ocean & Coast. Manag.245, 106878. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106878

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  ShmatkoO.LitvinovaJ.ShokinM. (2023). New blockchain-based supply chain management system model. Sci. Collect. «InterConf+»33 (155), 470–479. 10.51582/interconf.19-20.05.2023.041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  SirdeshmukhD.SinghJ.SabolB. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. J. Mark.66 (1), 15–37. 10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  Sogn-GrundvågG.ZhangD.HenriksenE.JoensenS.BendiksenB.-I.HermansenØ. (2021). Fish quality and market performance: the case of the coastal fishery for Atlantic cod in Norway. Mar. Policy127, 104449. 10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104449

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  SparksJ. L. D.SomersN.WilliamsC.O’BrienM.JacksonB. (2025). The illusion of social improvements: a case study of the role of Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) in fairwashing the UK Nephrops fishery. Mar. Policy175, 106629. 10.1016/j.marpol.2025.106629

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  StranieriS.RiccardiF.MeuwissenM. P.SoregaroliC. (2021). Exploring the impact of blockchain on the performance of agri-food supply chains. Food control.119, 107495. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107495

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  SualiA. S.SraiJ. S.TsolakisN. (2024). The role of digital platforms in e-commerce food supply chain resilience under exogenous disruptions. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J.29 (3), 573–601. 10.1108/scm-02-2023-0064

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  TatarU.KarabacakB.KeskinO. F.FotiD. P. (2024). Charting new waters with CRAMMTS: a survey-driven cybersecurity risk analysis method for maritime stakeholders. Comput. & Secur.145, 104015. 10.1016/j.cose.2024.104015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  TehL. C.CaddellR.AllisonE. H.FinkbeinerE. M.KittingerJ. N.NakamuraK.et al (2019). The role of human rights in implementing socially responsible seafood. PloS One14 (1), e0210241. 10.1371/journal.pone.0210241

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  The Nature Conservancy (2024). Structure of seafood supply chains. Available online at: https://reefresilience.org/management-strategies/coral-reef-fisheries-module/making-sense-of-wild-seafood-supply-chains/structure-of-seafood-supply-chains/.

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  ThompsonB. S.RustS. (2023). Blocking blockchain: examining the social, cultural, and institutional factors causing innovation resistance to digital technology in seafood supply chains. Technol. Soc.73, 102235. 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102235

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  TianX.SarkisJ. (2023). Towards greener trade and global supply chain environmental accounting. An embodied environmental resources blockchain design. Int. J. Prod. Res.62, 1–20. 10.1080/00207543.2023.2232890

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  TokkozhinaU.MartinsA. L.FerreiraJ. C. (2021). “Adopting blockchain in supply chain – an approach for a pilot,”. Intelligent transport systems, from research and development to the market uptake. Editors MartinsA. L.FerreiraJ. C.KocianA.CostaV. (Springer International Publishing), 364, 125–141. 10.1007/978-3-030-71454-3_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  TokkozhinaU.MartinsA. L.FerreiraJ. C.CasacaA. (2023). “Traceable distribution of fish products: state of the art of blockchain technology applications to fish supply chains,”. Intelligent transport systems. Editors MartinsA. L.FerreiraJ. C.KocianA.TokkozhinaU. (Switzerland: Springer Nature), 486, 89–100. 10.1007/978-3-031-30855-0_6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  TravailleK. L. T.LindleyJ.KendrickG. A.CrowderL. B.CliftonJ. (2019). The market for sustainable seafood drives transformative change in fishery social-ecological systems. Glob. Environ. Change57, 101919. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  TsolakisN.NiedenzuD.SimonettoM.DoraM.KumarM. (2021). Supply network design to address United Nations sustainable development goals: a case study of blockchain implementation in Thai fish industry. J. Bus. Res.131, 495–519. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  TsolakisN.SchumacherR.DoraM.KumarM. (2023). Artificial intelligence and blockchain implementation in supply chains: a pathway to sustainability and data monetisation?Ann. Operations Res.327 (1), 157–210. 10.1007/s10479-022-04785-2

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  UntalF. J. P.CastroM. M. C.SarmientoJ. M. (2025). Fishers’ preference for mobile traceability platform: challenges in achieving a digital tuna supply chain in Davao Region, Philippines. Int. J. Logist. Manag.36 (2), 433–451. 10.1108/ijlm-03-2024-0153

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  VandithaM.HegdeS. R.SnehithK.PrasadA. S.MadappaE. A. (2023). “Agricultural supply chain management System using blockchain,” in 2023 international conference on recent trends in electronics and communication (ICRTEC), 1–4.

  • Google Scholar

• 112

  VasanthrajV.PotdarV.AgrawalH.KaurA. (2024). Transforming milk supply chains with blockchain: enhancing visibility and cost reduction. Benchmarking An Int. J.Available online at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/bij-10-2023-0702/full/html.

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  Vazquez MelendezE. I.BergeyP.SmithB. (2024). Blockchain technology for supply chain provenance: increasing supply chain efficiency and consumer trust. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J.Available online at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/SCM-08-2023-0383/full/html.

  • Google Scholar

• 114

  VernP.PanghalA.DilbaghiA. N.MorR. S.MuduliK.DaboA.-A. (2024). Unlocking consumer trust: exploring key factors in blockchain-enabled traceability for processed food supply chain. LogForum Sci. J. Logist.20 (2), 209–226. 10.17270/j.log.001023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  VirdinJ.VeghT.RatcliffB.HaviceE.DalyJ.StuartJ. (2022). Combatting illegal fishing through transparency initiatives: lessons learned from comparative analysis of transparency initiatives in seafood, apparel, extractive, and timber supply chains. Mar. Policy138, 104984. 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.104984

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  VirmaniN.SinghR. K. (2024). Analysis of barriers for adopting blockchain in agri-food supply chain management: a decision support framework. Int. J. Qual. & Reliab. Manag.41 (8), 2122–2145. 10.1108/ijqrm-03-2023-0078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  VlachosI.ZisimopoulosA.TsoulfasG. T. (2024). Digitisation of franchising supply chain impact on franchisor performance: a longitudinal case study of a coffee retail chain. Int. J. Phys. Distribution & Logist. Manag.54 (9), 846–876. 10.1108/ijpdlm-05-2023-0153

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  WangS.GhadgeA.AktasE. (2024). Digital transformation in food supply chains: an implementation framework. Supply Chain Manag. An Int. J.29 (2), 328–350. 10.1108/scm-09-2023-0463

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  WeitzmanJ.BaileyM. (2018). Perceptions of aquaculture ecolabels: a multi-stakeholder approach in Nova Scotia, Canada. Mar. Policy87, 12–22. 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.037

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  WoldsethM.KvernelvR. B. (2021). Blockchain i forsyningskjeder for norsk fisk-En kvalitativ studie av hvordan blockchain gir sporingsfordeler [Master’s Thesis]. NTNU.

  • Google Scholar

• 121

  WongL.-W.TanG. W.-H.LeeV.-H.OoiK.-B.SohalA. (2020). Unearthing the determinants of Blockchain adoption in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res.58 (7), 2100–2123. 10.1080/00207543.2020.1730463

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  XiongH.DalhausT.WangP.HuangJ. (2020). Blockchain technology for agriculture: applications and rationale, 3. Frontiers in Blockchain, 7.

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  Xue-LønmoK. (2024). The blockchain-based DNA tracing seafood supply chain: a longitudinal case study. Available online at: https://nva.sikt.no/registration/01990babd9da-b08a7d8b-2ec7-404c-b93b-5a50a2aa8f3e.

  • Google Scholar

• 124

  YangH.HeS.FengQ.XiaS.ZhouQ.WuZ.et al (2024). Navigating the depths of seafood authentication: technologies, regulations, and future prospects. Meas. Food14, 100165. 10.1016/j.meafoo.2024.100165

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  YavaprabhasK.PournaderM.SeuringS. (2023). Blockchain as the “trust-building machine” for supply chain management. Ann. Operations Res.327 (1), 49–88. 10.1007/s10479-022-04868-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  ZhongS.WernerC. (2025). The hidden strength of small business: social networks and wet market vendors in China. Econ. Anthropol.12 (1), e12323. 10.1002/sea2.12323

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  ZhongJ.ChengH.JiaF. (2024). Adoption decision of agricultural product traceability system in small and micro enterprises. Industrial Manag. & Data Syst.124 (3), 1263–1298. 10.1108/imds-08-2023-0532

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar