An Evidence of Distributed Trust in Blockchain-Based Sustainable Food Supply Chain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The  theoretical background of the paper could be better designed and explained to the reader

Author Response

I would like to thank Reviewer 1 for invaluable suggestions that were indeed helpful in enhancing the manuscript.

Point 1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required. The theoretical background of the paper could be better designed and explained to the reader.

Response 1: The manuscript was checked and revised by two native English-speakers.

On pp. 1-2.

“What kind of characteristics of blockchain-based food supply chain bring distributed trust and user’s satisfaction? There have been many studied on distributed trust dealing with trust among nodes or entities of a distributed network by ensuring and enhancing security in distributed computing systems [8, 9] and on distributed trust in platform and sharing economy applying blockchain [10, 11, 12]. However, there were no empirical studies providing evidence on relations among characteristics of permissioned blockchain, trust in supply chain, and user’s satisfaction.

The purpose of the present study is to examine determinants of distributed trust in blockchain-based food supply chain, and test seven hypotheses derived from the structural equation model integrating distributed trust, its three determinants, and users’ satisfaction. Transparency, traceability, and security are suggested as three determinants of distributed trust in the blockchain-based food supply chain.”

On pages 1 to 5, we described blockchain, supply chain, stakeholders of supply chain, distributed trust, and user’s satisfaction as a type of user’s attitude. The background implies supply chain theory, stakeholder theory, trust theory, and satisfaction theory. In particular, the research model of the present study presented in Figure 1 was derived from the theories. We suggested a new research model and tested seven hypotheses.

Reviewer 2 Report

The study investigated the influence of blockchain attributes on trust and satisfaction. Although the authors used the term sustainability in the title, the article is not related to sustainability (please refer to questionnaire items). The main issue of the article is that the study is at firm level but satisfaction (dependent variable) is an individual variable.

 

1. Provide a background of studies on blockchain in the food supply chain and determine the gap in the literature that your study addressed.
2. Clarify how your study is relevant to sustainable food supply chain.
3. The framework was not supported by theory. Support the proposed framework with a relevant theory.
4. Transparency and traceability are interrelated. Why did the authors consider them as independent variables?
5. The authors support all hypotheses together. Support them in different sections and provide specific support for each hypothesis.
6. Satisfaction is an individual variable. The population of the study was firm.
7. Methodology section needs significant improvement. The process of data collection should be explained in detail.
8. The descriptive analysis of respondents’ positions is needed.
9. Please check the entire manuscript. Many arguments need reference. Example: “Blockchain enables secure, reliable, and efficient distributed management systems without a trusted third party which are a core part of centralized supply chain management” OR “Distributed trust refers to the belief in the blockchain-based system which enables stakeholders those who do not know each other well to trust through consensus among them without a third party”
10. Direction quotations need page numbers.
11. The authors used direct quotations frequently and most of the time is not necessary. Using direct quotation for defining variables is fine, please remove the rest.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

I would like to thank Reviewer 2. Below, I provide my reply to the reviewer’s comments and the changes made to the manuscript.

Point 1: Provide a background of studies on blockchain in the food supply chain and determine the gap in the literature that your study addressed

Response 1: On pp. 1-2.

“What kind of characteristics of blockchain-based food supply chain bring distributed trust and user’s satisfaction? There have been many studied on distributed trust dealing with trust among nodes or entities of a distributed network by ensuring and enhancing security in distributed computing systems [8, 9] and on distributed trust in platform and sharing economy applying blockchain [10, 11, 12]. However, there were no empirical studies providing evidence on relations among characteristics of permissioned blockchain, trust in supply chain, and user’s satisfaction.

The purpose of the present study is to examine determinants of distributed trust in blockchain-based food supply chain, and test seven hypotheses derived from the structural equation model integrating distributed trust, its three determinants, and users’ satisfaction. Transparency, traceability, and security are suggested as three determinants of distributed trust in the blockchain-based food supply chain.”

Point 2: Clarify how your study is relevant to sustainable food supply chain.

Response 2:  Blockchain ensures supply chain management as described in introductory and conclusion sections as follows:

“Applications of blockchain technology to supply chain enhance trust among stake-holders and increase the sustainability of businesses [1].”

“Issues regarding the relationship between the trust-free system and sustainability remain for further research. In addition, further research dealing with the relationship between distributed trust and smart contracts also needs to be followed. Our research model can be applied to many areas related to trust based on blockchain. An empirical study regarding the relation of blockchain technology and sustainability is an important further research area. OECD argues that blockchain is an enabler for sustainable services through a case study in the areas of emissions certificate trading systems and contract management sys-tems because transparency, security, and process efficiency can leveraged to drive the systematic changes by providing sustainable infrastructure [57].”

Point 3: The framework was not supported by theory. Support the proposed framework with a relevant theory.

Response 3: On pages 1 to 5, we described blockchain, supply chain, stakeholders of supply chain, distributed trust, and user’s satisfaction as a type of user’s attitude. The background implies supply chain theory, stakeholder theory, trust theory, and satisfaction theory. In particular, the research model of the present study presented in Figure 1 was derived from the theories. We suggested a new research model and tested seven hypotheses. There are less contributions to building a new theory if a theory or research models had been proofed by previous studies. There exists a trade-off or tension between theoretical robustness and creative suggestions or implications for practitioners.

Point 4: Transparency and traceability are interrelated. Why did the authors consider them as independent variables?

Response 4: As reviewer commented, transparency and traceability are interrelated. However, transparency is different from traceability because the latter addresses backward tracking, whereas the former includes some critical concepts beyond those of the latter. Transparency is closely related to visibility as described in the present study. Some extant studies use two concepts as different variables.

Please refer to following references:

Garcia-Torres, S., Rey-Garcia, M., Sáenz, J. and Seuring, S. (2021), "Traceability and transparency for sustainable fashion-apparel supply chains", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-07-2020-0125

Nilakshi W . K Galahitiyawe and Gayani Patabandige, ROLE Of SUPPLY CHAIN TRANSPARENCY: TRACEABILITY AND VISIBILITY IN ACHIEVING ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE, Conference: International Conference on Business management At: School of Business and Economics, University of Management and Technology.

Point 5: The authors support all hypotheses together. Support them in different sections and provide specific support for each hypothesis.

Response 5: A total of seven hypotheses were suggested in the present study. Six hypotheses from H1 to H6 are related to three determinants and one hypothesis, H7 deals with the relationship between trust and satisfaction as endogenous variables. We think that it is easy for readers to understand the context of the six hypotheses related to three determinants rather than separation of each hypothesis. If reviewer gives some comments in detail, we try to provide specific supports for each hypothesis.

Point 6: Satisfaction is an individual variable. The population of the study was firm.

Response 6: One sample data was from the duty officer or manger representing the firm. The respondents representing the firm represent the overall satisfaction of the firm. Some extant studies dealt with the relationship between satisfaction and firm’s performance at the level of firm.

Point 7: Methodology section needs significant improvement. The process of data collection should be explained in detail.

Response 7: On p. 8.  “To reach users who are responsible for using a blockchain-based food supply chain in their firms, the present study employed purposive sampling and snowball sampling methods. Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling method in which researchers rely on their own judgment when choosing samples. Snowball sampling is also a non-probability sampling method in which researchers recruit participants from among their acquaintances, and then, in turn, the informants introduce new participants to researchers. The questionnaire was published by using Wenjuanxing (www.wjx.ch) which is the most popular website for online surveys in China, and were sent out through WeChat or email for online survey. Each questionnaire was sent to supply chain representatives who were members of the China Animal Health and Food Safety Alliance (CAFA) which is a government-backed organization under the Chinese National Agricultural Science Technology Innovation Alliance. VeChain is one of the council members of CAFA.”

 Point 8: The descriptive analysis of respondents’ positions is needed.

Response 8: Questionnaire did not include a question item asking respondent’s position. Gender, age, years of working as supply chain representative, and type of firm were asked as described in Table 4.

Point 9: Please check the entire manuscript. Many arguments need reference.

Response 9:  “Blockchain enables secure, reliable, and efficient distributed management systems without a trusted third party which are a core part of centralized supply chain management” [13] OR “Distributed trust refers to the belief in the blockchain-based system which enables stakeholders those who do not know each other well to trust through consensus among them without a third party” [10].

Points 10-11:    Direction quotations need page numbers. The authors used direct quotations frequently and most of the time is not necessary. Using direct quotation for defining variables is fine, please remove the rest

Response 10-11: According reviewer’s comments, we rephrased direct quotations and deleted some of them.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article deals with a very topical subject and is very nicely structured. I do have a few comments, however:
- On page 9, paragraph 2: Table 5 shows inter-construct correlation and for .. I think it is correct: Table 5 shows inter-construct correlation and the AVE for... The square root of AVE is shown in Table 6.
- Page 10, the paragraph below Table 7 is incomprehensible.
- Further comment should be made on the results presented in Table 9.
- In conclusion, write what can follow the research presented (further research).

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

I would like to thank Reviewer 3 for invaluable suggestions that were indeed helpful in enhancing the manuscript. Below, I provide my reply to the reviewer’s comments and the changes made to the manuscript.

Point: The article deals with a very topical subject and is very nicely structured. I do have a few comments, however:

- On page 9, paragraph 2: Table 5 shows inter-construct correlation and for .. I think it is correct: Table 5 shows inter-construct correlation and the AVE for... The square root of AVE is shown in Table 6.

Point 1: Page 10, the paragraph below Table 7 is incomprehensible.

Response 1: On pp. 12-13.

 “Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was applied to test the research hypotheses of this study. The standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) is used for the goodness-of-fit of the structural equation model using PLS [43]. The goodness-of-fit refers to the extent to which the structural equation model fits the sample data. The goodness-of-fit is regarded to be high when the SRMR is not greater than the reference value of 0.08 [48]. The SRMR of this research model was found to be 0.042, which is less than the threshold. GoF (Goodness of Fit) is also used to validate the PLS model globally [50]. A GoF value of 0.500 in the research model exceeds the cut-off value of 0.36 [23]. Thus, the structural equation model provided satisfactory fit. The R-squared values of trust and satisfaction were shown not to be unsatisfactory at 0.481 and 0.248, respectively [43].”

Point 2: Further comment should be made on the results presented in Table 9.

Response 2:  On p. 13.

“SmartPLS provides the direct, indirect, and total effects of the structural equation model. Table 9 shows the indirect effects of distributed trust between exogenous latent variables (transparency, traceability, and security) and satisfaction. The indirect effects of distributed trust were significant in all three paths. Transparency, traceability, and security have a significant impact on the satisfaction through distributed trust as a mediation.”

Point 3: In conclusion, write what can follow the research presented (further research).

Response 3: On page 15.

 “Issues regarding the relationship between the trust-free system and sustainability remain for further research. In addition, further research dealing with the relationship between distributed trust and smart contracts also needs to be followed. Our research model can be applied to many areas related to trust based on blockchain. An empirical study regarding the relation of blockchain technology and sustainability is an important further research area. OECD argues that blockchain is an enabler for sustainable services through a case study in the areas of emissions certificate trading systems and contract management systems because transparency, security, and process efficiency can leveraged to drive the systematic changes by providing sustainable infrastructure [57].”

Reviewer 4 Report

Well written manuscript. 

Author Response

I would like to thank the reviewer 4 for the positive comment.

Sincerely

Jaehun 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not addressed my comments carefully. The hypotheses should be supported separately. The framework should be supported by a theory. The article has a basic issue and satisfaction is not a firm-level variable.

Author Response

I would like to thank Reviewer 2. Below, I provide my reply to the reviewer’s comments and the changes made to the manuscript.

Point:  The authors have not addressed my comments carefully. The hypotheses should be supported separately. The framework should be supported by a theory. The article has a basic issue and satisfaction is not a firm-level variable.

 

Response: Six hypotheses were separated as three parts.

Transparency refers to the ability to know what is happening upstream in the supply chain and to communicate this information among stakeholders across the supply chain [31]. A higher level of transparency is associated with consumer’s will-ingness to pay 2% to 10% more for products through a transparent supply chain [31]. Transparency is directly associated with the provision of information to reduce uncer-tainty related to products or services [26]. Transparent information contributes to re-ducing uncertainty in supply chain systems. According to [26], there exists a significant positive relationship between transparency and trust. Blockchain transparency has a positive significant effect on supply chain performance [25]. Blockchain improves ac-cessibility, visibility, accountability, and cooperation for stakeholders in the food supply chain [32]. Accordingly, transparency is an important determinant of trust and satis-faction. The present study posits the following hypotheses:

 Hypothesis 1 (H1): Transparency has a positive influence on distributed trust in the blockchain-based food supply chain.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Transparency has a positive influence on satisfaction in the blockchain-based food supply chain.

 Traceability refers to the ability to trace the origin, history, and location of an en-tity under consideration [24]. [33] defined traceability as the process by which firms track materials and products and the conditions in which they were produced through the supply chain. Blockchain lets stakeholders of the supply chain track the status in real time and monitor the quality of products or services in real time. For example, a refrig-erated container equipped with IoT devices can record any unsafe fluctuations on the blockchain [2]. [28] defined blockchain traceability as the ability to track and trace products and transaction documents including bill of lading and shipping notifications along the supply chain. Stakeholder of supply chain can track and validate the origin of food by using a digital code with digital signature [28]. An effective food traceability system is an important tool not only to manage food quality and safety risks, but also to promote the development of effective food supply chain management [34]. Many food scandals and incidents have been occurred in China. Traceability contributes to achieving consumer confidence in the food industry and helps to build customers’ trust [27]. The present study posits the following hypotheses:

 Hypothesis 3 (H3): Traceability has a positive influence on distributed trust in the blockchain-based food supply chain.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Traceability has a positive influence on satisfaction in the blockchain-based food supply chain.

 Many studies show the evidence of a significant relationship between perceived security and consumers’ trust in e-commerce [35]. According to [23], the security of banking systems has a significant positive effect on customer’s satisfaction. [36] argued that blockchain security contributes to improving trust among trade partners through in-depth interview with industry experts. According to [2]’s study on transparent and secure supply chain, one of core functions of blockchain is to enable an unlimited number of anonymous parties to transact securely with one another without a central third party. Accordingly, a transparent and secure supply chain increases stakeholders’ trust in the food supply chain. Blockchain with channel function like Hyperledger Fabric assures privacy protection by prohibiting unauthorized participants’ access to some secret information in the food supply chain. The present study posits the following hypotheses:

 Hypothesis 5 (H5): Security has a positive influence on distributed trust in the blockchain-based food supply chain.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Security has a positive influence on satisfaction in the block-chain-based food supply chain.

As we argued in the first revision, we described blockchain, supply chain, stakeholders of supply chain, distributed trust, and user’s satisfaction as a type of user’s attitude. On page 5, we suggested distributed trust theory, three characteristics of blockchain technology, and stakeholders’ satisfaction. The background implies supply chain theory, stakeholder theory, trust theory, and satisfaction theory. In particular, the research model of the present study presented in Figure 1 was derived from the theories. We suggested a new research model and tested seven hypotheses. There are less contributions to building a new theory if a theory or research models had been proofed by previous studies. There exists a trade-off or tension between theoretical robustness and creative suggestions or implications for practitioners. If reviewer gives some comments in detail, we try to revise the manuscript according to it.

One sample data was from the representative representing the firm. The respondents representing the firm represent the overall satisfaction of the firm. Some extant studies dealt with the relationship between satisfaction and firm’s performance at the level of firm. All question items were measured by the 5-point Likert scale based on respondent’s perceived satisfaction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors addressed the concerns.