AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY OF BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY IN A SUPPLY CHAIN CONTEXT

(1)

AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY OF

BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY IN A SUPPLY

CHAIN CONTEXT

From an end-to-end supply chain perspective

Hanna Weigand 2540444

Master’s thesis

MSc. Supply Chain Management Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Supervisors: Dr. ir. P. Buijs & Dr. ir. N.J. Pulles

(2)

(3)

Abstract

Purpose. This thesis explored how supply chain stakeholders perceive the opportunities and challenges of blockchain technology in supply chains. In addition, the goal was to outline how the nature and quality of inter-organizational relationships change when supply chain stakeholders (intent to) adopt blockchain.

Design/methodology/approach. An exploratory, qualitative single case study was performed in the supply chain of a large multinational in the FMCG industry. Twenty-one interviews were conducted with almost every stakeholder in the chain. The Gioia methodology approach was used to collect and analyze the data in order to thoroughly analyze the emerging technology blockchain. This allowed to establish new concepts.

Findings. Four opportunities and four challenges of blockchain technology in supply chains were found which were perceived differently by different stakeholder groups depending whether they had an operational role or more controlling, overarching role within the chain. Additionally, inter-organizational relationships are expected to change due to the direct connections between operational partners when blockchain technology is adopted. Consequently, the role of the shipper and port community system will change whereas the quality of operational relationships will be enhanced.

Practical implications. This research can be used by organizations that explore the implementation of blockchain technology in its supply chains. Moreover, this research can create awareness about the possible impact of blockchain technology on inter-organizational relationships.

Originality/contributions. This study is one of the few empirical studies that explores blockchain technology in a real-life supply chain setting. Whereas literature often mention trust between actors as positive result of blockchain adoption, this thesis shows that trust is an enabler of blockchain adoption in supply chains. Trust between supply chain stakeholders should already exist before adopting industry-wide technologies.

(4)

1 Introduction

Whether it is the biggest technological breakthrough since the internet, or merely a management fad, the blockchain surely attracts a lot of attention in the supply chain community. Blockchain technology was initially developed to disrupt the financial sector with Bitcoin in 2008 (Nakamoto, 2008). However, other blockchain applications have started to emerge in other sectors too. For instance, an industry-wide platform is being developed by IBM and ocean carrier Maersk to enhance end-to-end visibility in the ocean shipping industry (Forbes, 2018). Blockchain technology is an online, distributed database where information is shared among and agreed upon the actors in a network (Seebacher & Schüritz, 2017). Information is not only encrypted by digital signatures, but is also stored in linked blocks holding time-stamps and secured by public-key cryptography (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). Those features differentiate blockchain databases from traditional databases and other cloud solutions.

In management literature, academics have started to acknowledge the relevance of blockchain technology in supply chains and logistics (Kshetri, 2018; Treiblmaier, 2018). Blockchain prototypes are proposed to solve specific supply chain issues, such as reducing hard-copy documents in the shipping supply chain (Naerland et al., 2017) and the lack of trust in supply chain quality management (Chen et al., 2017). The blockchain certainly belongs to a hype where some argue that supply chain actors will benefit the most of blockchain technology when the entire supply chain network is involved due to the network effect (Tama et al., 2017). The blockchain hype alone may already have impacted supply chains since organizations have suddenly shown interest in solving hitherto uninteresting back-office processes. When fully realized it is assumed that blockchain will change the nature and quality of inter-organizational relationships in supply chains since information will be shared among actors who were disconnected before (Treiblmaier, 2018; Dobrovnik et al., 2018). This is expected to result in novel, yet unknown, challenges for supply chain management in coping with changed partnerships (Treiblmaier, 2018) which may in return serve as a barrier to blockchain adoption (Saberi et al., 2018).

(6)

why supply chain professionals intent to adopt blockchain (Kamble et al. 2018; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019). Whereas IT adoption literature focus on individual supply chain professionals, the study of Sander et al. (2018) is one of the few case studies that focuses on blockchain acceptance among supply chain stakeholders to enhance supply chain transparency. It is stated that stakeholders’ perspectives on blockchain can vary widely depending on their role and stage in the chain as well as their favored level of information transparency (Sander et al., 2018). However, a thorough understanding of how the opportunities and challenges of blockchain are perceived by supply chain stakeholders is lacking here. Additionally, reducing hard-copy documents and improving information flows in supply chains are not novel to supply chain management. Taken together, further research is needed to explore the ins and outs of blockchain technology within use cases in order to investigate where blockchain differentiates itself from existing solutions in the supply chain (Seebacher & Schüritz, 2017; Saberi et al., 2018). Moreover, existing literature concerning blockchain technology in supply chains and its impact on supply chain relationships is mostly conceptual in nature, thus empirical research about blockchain technology in supply chains is much desired (Treiblmaier, 2018; Kouhizahed & Sarkis, 2018; Nowiński & Kozma, 2017). Therefore, this thesis addresses the following research questions:

RQ1 How do different stakeholders in a supply chain perceive the opportunities and challenges of blockchain technology?

RQ2 How do the nature and quality of the inter-organizational relationships change when supply chain actors (intent to) adopt blockchain technology?

A single case study was performed at a large multinational active in the FMCG sector. The findings of RQ1 will contribute to existing work of the emerging technology due to its high qualitative nature in an unique research setting. Data was collected via 21 semi-structured interviews with almost every relevant stakeholder group in the container shipping supply chain. The focal company and its corresponding supply chain partners were collaborating in a blockchain platform pilot at the time of writing this study. Therefore, hitherto intended to adopt blockchain corresponding to RQ2. This is valuable to thoroughly understand blockchain technology in supply chains and how this technology (possibly) impacts the entire supply chain.

(7)

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Blockchain Technology

Management literature proposes a few definitions of blockchain technology. According to Tapscott & Tapscott (2016), blockchain technology is “an incorruptible digital ledger of economic transactions that

can be programmed to record not just financial transactions but virtually everything of value” (p. 5). This

definition is still quite broad and does not encompass all aspects of this emerging technology. Seebacher & Schüritz (2017) developed a more complete definition based on a review of current management literature: “A blockchain is a distributed database, which is shared among and agreed upon a peer-to-peer network.

It consists of a linked sequence of blocks, holding timestamped transactions that are secured by public-key cryptography and verified by the network community. Once an element is appended to the blockchain, it cannot be altered, turning a blockchain into an immutable record of past activity.” (p. 4).

The blockchain architecture is a data structure that consists of nodes, transactions and blocks holding transactions (see Figure 1 below for an illustration). Nodes are people/actors, or simply computers, that together form a blockchain network of nodes. One starts with individual transactions of events which can be anything that contains information such as digital tokes (e.g., Bitcoin), money transactions, key performance indicators or documents (Abeyratne & Monfared, 2016). A bundle of transactions forms a

block. Each block contains a timestamp and is linked to the previous block in the network using

sophisticated mathematics called a hash (Nakamoto, 2008). This is explained later in detail. The sequence of linked blocks results in a chronological chain of blocks, also named the database or ledger.

Blockchain technology is the backbone of an online database that combines some distinct features: distributed ledger technology, decentralization and data encryption. First, blockchain technology uses

distributed ledger technology meaning all actors/computers are interconnected and share information

directly with one another (Lewis, 2017). Hereby, each actor has an identical version of the database, thus

(8)

when one actor adds something in their database, the other copies of the database are automatically updated in order to be the same version again (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). In this way, all participants have access to the same real-time data which results in improving end-to-end supply chain transparency (Kshetri, 2018). Moreover, risk is also distributed among the parties which makes blockchains more sustainable and secure than centralized systems (Abeyratne & Monfared, 2016). To what extent data are distributed and accessible for nodes depends on the type of blockchain network. This is explained in section ‘Types of blockchain’.

Next, a blockchain database is decentralized whereas most databases nowadays are centralized (Abeyratne & Monfared, 2016). Contrary to a centralized database where data is stored on a central server and controlled by one party, in a decentralized database identical information is stored across and controlled by the players in the network. In other words, no single party controls or stores data or information in a blockchain database (Morabito, 2017). In a decentralized database, messages can be stored and transferred without help of a trusted central authority since data are validated by its network using a peer-to-peer collaboration (Lewis et al., 2017). Multiple consensus mechanisms are developed which can be used in the validation process and aim to achieve agreement about data reliability in the network (Lewis et al., 2017). Issues in a centralized database such as fraud by the controller and defects at the central server are aimed to diminish with a decentralized database. In this way, the validation process promises to enhance trust among the parties in the network (Abeyratne & Monfared, 2016).

(9)

including the digital signature (created by the sender’s private key) which confirms the digital legitimacy (Morabito, 2017).

Cryptography, in the form of hash codes, is also used to structure a linked chain of blocks. The transactions and its hashes are stored in a block of data which are linked to the previous block using cryptography, a new hash. A change in an earlier block will result in an incorrect hash in the next block. Therefore, modifications can easily be detected. Additionally, it requires an extreme amount of computing power to successfully modify or delete blocks since this means that one should recalculate all hashes in the entire chain. This feature ensures (almost entire) immutability of the data, thus increases the security and reliability of information. It is argued that blockchain technology due to cryptography and consensus mechanisms enhances trust among the parties in the network (Abeyratne & Monfared, 2016). Besides, such a high level of encryption and hash codes build in blockchain, ensures that the network is less sensible for hacks than other systems (Morabito, 2017).

2.1.1 Types of blockchain

Blockchains can roughly be divided into two different networks: public and private blockchains (Seebacher & Schüritz, 2017). Additionally, the distinction is made between permissioned and permissionless blockchains where this depends on the accessibility of the blockchain network (Morabito, 2017). Public blockchains are often permissionless meaning everyone can join the network. Next, the network is public since everyone can view and submit transactions or join the consensus process in order to validate transactions. Users in a public blockchain are anonymous since actors are only visible through their blockchain address (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). Examples of a public blockchain are Bitcoin and Ethereum. The main goal of a public blockchain is offering full transparency and eliminating third parties as a trusted force in the process (Nakamoto, 2008). An often-heard challenge of public blockchains is scalability and its high energy use due to its validation process named mining (Peters & Panayi, 2016). Although mining is not involved in most private blockchains (Zheng, 2018), private blockchains still have to cope with a high amount of transactions and information involved in supply chain.

(10)

The business world seems to be more interested in private blockchains since companies often operate in a more closed environment with known business partners. Private blockchains are permissioned blockchains meaning that the network is only open to participants that meet the enrollment criteria (Lewis, 2017). Furthermore, there is restricted access of parties in the network who can view, submit and validate certain transactions and data (Peters & Panayi, 2016). Participants in a private blockchain often know each other. An example is Hyperledger established by the Linux Foundation (Hyperledger.org, 2018). Recently, a shift towards hybrid solutions has been detected to bridge the gap between public and private blockchains. A hybrid blockchain, or referred as consortium blockchain is a private blockchain where the permissioned members of the network are the sole actors of the network who are able to participate in a consensus mechanisms (Zheng et al., 2018). Still, data transparency will increase compared to a full centralized system since data are shared directly between the sole network (Francisco & Swanson, 2018).

2.2 Blockchain technology in supply chains

Blockchain technology has numerous opportunities and applications in supply chains. Some opportunities origin from the combination of distinct functionalities of blockchain technology. The feature of distributed ledger technology enables end-to-end supply chain visibility meaning that processes are transparent in the supply chain for every permissioned stakeholder in the network (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). A conceptual paper of Kshetri (2018) argues that this increased transparency can achieve supply chain management objectives such as rising speed and reducing costs. According to Seebacher & Schüritz (2017), the decentralized nature is a principal characteristic of blockchain technology and interrelated with trust. Trust is indirectly evoked by the establishment of transparency in the network, data integrity by peer-to-peer verification of transactions and immutability of transactions. These mechanisms are needed for the creation of a decentralized network where the privacy of participants is maintained and data can be shared in a reliable way without trusted intermediaries needed. Apart from expected partner trust, the validation process might also enhance supply chain management since errors will be reduced (Clauson et al., 2018).

(11)

blockchain prototype that specifically demonstrates how the Bill of Lading, one of the most important hard-copy printed documents in shipping, was turned into a smart contract in the blockchain. “A smart contract

is activated once a pre-set condition or set of conditions agreed to by the parties in involved are triggered and all partied informed (or updated) per the contract” (Francisco & Swanson, 2018, p3). The goal of

smart contracts is to reduce human involvement which in turn reduces costs and mistakes often made by performing manual work (Abeyratne & Monfared, 2016). The prototype of Nærland et al. (2017) was tested by carriers’ IT experts who argued that blockchain including smart contracts could potentially improve information management processes of the carrier. However, the conservatism of the industry and privacy concerns of such Bill of Ladings were considered as large challenges.

(12)

industry acceptance and data security. The findings of this survey can be linked with the adoption challenges argued by Saberi et al. (2018) but still significance and relationships between the challenges are not thoroughly analyzed in supply chains. Also, it seems that more opportunities and challenges are discovered in literature than is actually investigated in empirical settings.

2.2.1 The impact of blockchain technology on supply chains

Some say that blockchain technology will change the world like the internet did but so far, the technology is still in its infancy (Peck, 2017; Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017). There are still many unknowns about how blockchain will impact supply chains which is also hard to investigate empirically due to the scarce number of successful implications nowadays. A conceptual paper of Nowiński & Kozma (2017) analyzed the possible impact of blockchain on existing business models by reviewing multiple academic and business sources. It was found that blockchain technology might change business models since blockchain promotes that businesses do not need intermediaries anymore and operational efficiency will be increased. This is also mentioned by a study of Treiblmaier (2018) who performed an extensive literature study about the possible impact of blockchain technology on supply chains following typical supply chain management frameworks. The network theory mentioned in his study is related to this thesis since this theory focuses on managing inter-organizational supply chain relationships. Where Nowiński & Kozma (2017) only mentioned that intermediaries will be diminished using blockchain, Treiblmaier (2018) argues that blockchain technology has the potential to change the importance of inter-organizational relationships since also new relationships can be developed between organizations that were disconnected. This is expected to result in novel management challenges in how to cope with those new supply chain relationships. However, both authors acknowledge that the methodological approach is limited and further research should use qualitative methods in order to explore the extent and nature of the impact of blockchain applications on supply chains (Treiblmaier, 2018; Nowiński & Kozma, 2017). It is also unknown which novel management challenges will appear when hitherto disconnected companies start to collaborate in a blockchain network.

3 Methodology

(13)

fits best due to the novelty of blockchain and when the context is rather complex but relevant to the research (Yin, 1994). The unit of analysis is one trade lane meaning a regularly used route that encompasses all transport-related activities from one place to another. This thesis focuses on the export trade lane from the Netherlands to Africa. Multiple actors can be active on the same lane of shipment. The following stakeholder groups are relevant for this research since they perform the most crucial activities during one shipment: shipper, freight forwarders, inland terminals, ocean carriers, Dutch authorities, deep sea terminals, ports, systems and ship-to authorities.

3.1 Container shipping supply chain

This study was performed at a production facility of a large multinational company active in the FMCG industry. This production plant is capable of providing volumes to approximately 150 export markets next to its domestic market, the Netherlands. Orders are placed by either sales organizations or operating companies within the multinational group. The physical products are often delivered directly at the final customer. Most shippers contract a freight forwarder to take care of their shipment but larger shippers have contact with the ocean carriers directly due to its high volumes. The latter is the case in this study. Therefore, the focal company both produces and ships the products itself. Figure 3 displays a simple representation of the company’s export supply chain where its products are shipped in containers via the ocean. The dashed arrows represent information and document flows where the thick lines represent the physical flow of containers.

(14)

This supply chain looks linear but supply chains are far from linear. In addition to the physical flows, there are much more communication and information flows where more stakeholders are involved such as inspection companies, port community systems and customs brokers. The operating activities are mostly manual, paper-based processes and much communication is needed via phone and mail. The following Figure (4) presents the complexity in interactions in the company’s shipping supply chain which results in much inefficiencies and costly processes.

The research setting of this study was the container shipping supply chain. Generally, a container shipping supply chain is a supply chain where container shipping is involved meaning products are transported in ocean containers across the sea (Fransoo & Lee, 2013). This process starts with a shipper or freight forwarder and ends when the products are delivered to the customer. The global shipping supply chain deals with the following issues: inefficient collaboration between actors, fragmented information systems, manual processes and a high amount of documentation (Jensen et al., 2017; Fransoo & Lee, 2013). There is a high need for digitization, meaning that data are stored and exchanged in a digital world, and optimization of processes. The focal company was also experiencing issues in receiving scarce real-time and accurate data as well as processes were involved with many manual proceedings and documentation

(15)

handlings. Therefore, the focal company explored the opportunities of a shared information platform based on blockchain technology at the time of writing this study. Specifically, the opportunities of a private blockchain were explored since a private blockchain can create channels to ensure privacy of certain data between a closed group of participant within the network. Additionally, the volume of transactions is considered really high in the container shipping supply chain which better fits a private blockchain due to technological features (Peters & Panayi, 2016).

3.2 Data collection

Qualitative data was collected via multiple sources namely recorded and non-recorded interviews, meetings, calls and notes taken at conferences. Also, secondary data were obtained by reviewing business papers and articles. In total 21 interviews were conducted in a time period of four months which comprises eight different stakeholder groups of the container shipping supply chain. See Table 1 below for an overview. Interviews were also conducted with a blockchain expert and the shippers’ business association to get a comprehensive view. Last, notes were taken during meetings within the focal company and one conference that was attended. In this way, construct validity was enhanced since multiple viewpoints were investigated (Karlsson, 2016). All stakeholder groups corresponding the unit of analysis were interviewed, apart from Dutch Customs and companies in Africa.

Data collection method Ref. Stakeholder Position Length interview Recorded

semi-structured interviews

C1 Ocean Carrier Global Care business partner & Manager Customer service Netherlands

102 minutes

C2 Ocean Carrier Special Projects Manager 103 minutes C3 Ocean Carrier Manager Forwarding 63 minutes C4 Ocean Carrier Commercial Manager Benelux 105 minutes I1 Inland terminal Terminal Manager 51 minutes I2 Inland terminal Customer Service Employee 98 minutes D Deep Sea Terminal Landside Account Manager 65 minutes

P1 Port Head of Digital Platforms 60 minutes

A1 Dutch Authority Policy officer – Export documents 61 minutes F Freight Forwarder Business Process Analyst 85 minutes PCS Port Community

System

Innovation Consultant 83 minutes

BA Business Association Logistics

Project Manager Digitization SCM 78 minutes

EX Blockchain Expert Professor Information & Communication Technology

53 minutes

Conversation/ interview/ call

P2 Port Chief Digital, Information & Innovation Officer

Call: 30 minutes

A2 African

customs/authority

Commercial Manager, Global Trade Digitization – Kenya

(16)

IT IT facilitator Managing Consultant Nonrecorded -Various meetings S1 Shipper Customer Service Supervisor Nonrecorded

-Weekly meetings S2 Shipper Global Category Buyer Logistics Non-recorded S3 Shipper Manager Customer Service Export &

Customs

Non-recorded

S4 Shipper Coordinator Customs Non-recorded

S5 Shipper Tax Manager Non-recorded

Notes mail Dutch Customs Customs specialist Mail

Conference Various experts Various exports active in IT sector Non-recorded

The process of collecting the qualitative data and contacting interviewees was done as follows. In order to get an extensive overview of the players in the container shipping supply chain, the stakeholders were mapped and discussed with the focal company (Appendix A). Accordingly, interesting and active players in the market were discussed as potential interviewees. A case study interview protocol (Appendix B) was made that included: practical concerns of the interview, brief explanation about the relevance and purpose of the present study, interview questions, confidentiality procedures and personal contact information. The interview questions were divided in themes and respectively discussed during the interview. At first, general company and market related questions were asked in order to position the stakeholder within the container shipping supply chain. Second, questions about the current way of working of the stakeholder were discussed whereby the researcher focused on issues that could be improved by digitization such as IT, documentation and communication. Last, specific blockchain related questions were asked to investigate whether the aforementioned issues could be solved by blockchain or not, and why. Other possible opportunities and challenges of the technology were also discussed as well as its current impact and future perspectives. The interview questions were discussed among the supervisors of the focal company. Both reliability and validity were enhanced in this thesis since the protocol explains all steps and procedures of the data collection (Karlsson, 2016). All interviewees were invited by mail or phone where the aim of the interview was briefly explained. In total 17 persons were contacted for a recorded interview of which 4 denied the invitation. When confirmed, the researcher informed the interviewee by sharing an information sheet (Appendix C) which briefly explained the aim of the research, interview topics, personal background and practical conditions such as length of the interview. The information sheet was a subset of the case study interview protocol and written in Dutch to ease the preparation of the interviewees. Twenty interviews were conducted in Dutch and one in English to improve mutual understanding corresponding to the preferred language of the interviewees. The interviews followed a semi-structured approach to allow follow-up questions and probing. In this way, the interviews went fluently and contained in-depth

(17)

conversations where specific questions were focused on the type of stakeholder and its involvement in the supply chain. During the data collection, changes in the interview protocol were made based on prior responses following the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013). Additionally, further questions were asked to the interviewees when clarification or explanation about their response was needed. Each interview was recorded via an application on the researchers’ phone when approved by the interviewee.

Besides interviews, notes were taken during meetings and calls at the focal company and IT facilitator concerning the implementation process of a blockchain pilot project. Hereby, multiple perspectives and objectives towards blockchain technology within the focal company were observed. Next, notes were taken during a conference organized by the Economic & Business study association in Groningen related to blockchain technology in the supply chain. During and after the conference, the researcher has asked interesting speakers questions to enhance the understanding of blockchain technology.

3.3 Data analysis

The data analysis started with transcribing the recorded interviews from the tape shortly after the interviews were held. Additionally, notes made during meetings, calls, conferences and observation were extended shortly after the event so that the debated information was still fresh in the researchers’ mind. The transcripts and notes were held together in one database that was only accessible to the researcher. In this way, the confidentiality of the data was maintained but also reliability of the study was enhanced (Karlsson, 2016).

(18)

similarities among the developed themes. In total four dimensions of perceived opportunities of blockchain technology were emerged from ten 2nd_{-order themes. Concerning the perceived challenges, also four} aggregated dimensions were emerged from ten 2nd_{-order themes. The concepts, themes and aggregated} dimensions form the basis for the coding tree presented in Appendix D (opportunities) and Appendix E (challenges). The researcher has reviewed the results with its supervisors of the focal company in order to reduce the researchers’ bias. Last, literature was reviewed concerning the developed concepts and relationships in order to refine the analyzed relationships and static data structure.

4 Findings

There are some overarching challenges for global supply chains which also affects how blockchain was perceived by the interviewees. Most global supply chains deal with many local governments in different regions, thus various regulations and digitization strategies which often change. Organizations can hardly influence those governmental regulations but are obliged to follow. Generally, African organizations tend to not directly trust innovative projects from Western societies. “African organizations have the ‘First see,

before believe’ attitude and would rather develop innovative ideas themselves, therefore it is very hard to show the added value of a commercial Western product [industry-wide blockchain platform]”(African

Authority, see Table 1).

4.1 Opportunities and challenges of blockchain in supply chains

(19)

Table 2: Results of perceived opportunities (O) and challenges (C) of blockchain in technology in supply chains

# Opportunity (O)/ Challenge (C)

Underlying theme Mentioned by

interviewee

Illustrative quote O.1 Efficiency gain Reduce human involvement C1, C2, C4, I1,I2, D,

P1, A1

“Most issues occur in performing manual work. There is much copy-paste involved from one sheet to another on the sly. This should be reduced by digitization.”(Deep sea terminal)

Increase responsiveness C1, C2, C3, C4, I1, I2, EX

“ I expect that it is faster to handle adjustments in a blockchain for instance to react on delays. If you know that there will be a delay, you can anticipate directly.”(Carrier 4)

Enhance alignment of processes

C1, C2, I1, I2, D, BA, EX

“Blockchain could be beneficial for the final customer since efficiency can be achieved throughout the chain. This is because processes can be more aligned along the chain.”(Inland terminal 1)

O.2 Data correctness Data security C1, PCS, F, A1, EX “Blockchain enables a secure way of covering data. This is important when competitors use the same blockchain platform as we do.”(Carrier 1)

Data reliability C1, C2, C4, I2, P1,

PCS, BA

“ Data reliability will be improved if the data owner enters its data in the platform. It is more trustworthy to receive data directly from data owner.”(Carrier 2)

O.3 End-to-end supply

chain visibility

Data accessibility C1, C4, I1, I2, PCS, BA

“The port community system has much data however I do not have access to some information I would like to see.” (Inland terminal 2)

Increased transparency C2, C4, I1, I2, A1 “When looking at blockchain in the whole supply chain: transparency of export documents will be increased using blockchain since every permissioned actor in network can directly view validated documents.”(Authority 1)

O.4 Increased attention

for digitization

Positive side-effects of blockchain hype

C2, P1, PCS, BA “The hype of blockchain achieved a new way of negotiation with parties about data sharing. It is easier to talk about the technology blockchain than over human changes.”(Business association)

Need for digitization C1, C2, C4, P1, F, PCS, BA

“The shipping market is saturated thus need to look for digitization opportunities to grow.”(Carrier 1) Perceived competitive

advantages

C1, C2, C4, I1 ,D , P1, PCS

“The more you can digitize the operational process, the more space comes free to distinguish your company in order to reach for quality and customer service.”(Deep sea terminal)

C.1 Immaturity of blockchain Blockchain architecture issues C2, C3, I2, P1, PCS, F, A1, BA, EX

“There is no definition or jargon of blockchain which causes problems in conversations.”(Port community system) Development phase of

technology

C3, C4, P1, PCS, F, EX

“A barrier of blockchain in the future can be resource issues of good IT developers.”(Port 1)

C.2 Trust issues Mistrust in blockchain platform

C1, C2, C3, C4, PCS, F, P1, BA, A1, EX

“We see that parties do not trust a blockchain platform that is developed by one of the large players in market.”(Carrier 1) Credibility of blockchain C2, C3, C4, I1, I2,

PCS, A1

“I am quite skeptical about the current blockchain initiatives in ocean shipping. Some parties say that they developed a blockchain platform which is not true.”(Carrier 2)

C.3 Inter-organizational challenges

Lack of collaboration C1, C2, C3, I1, I2, D, P1, BA, EX

“Many initiatives in logistics are not successful because of all interests of the different parties. It seems that the interests should be managed first. The technology itself will not solve that problem.”(Business association)

Lack of IT integration C1, C2, C4, I1, I2, D, PCS, F, A1, BA, EX

“We use outdated IT systems such as EDI and excel. Our system is not ready to adopt API technologies yet, we only use EDI now to share data with our partners.”(Inland terminal 1)

Industry complexity C1, C2, C3, C4, I1, I2, D, P1, PCS, A1, F, BA

“The large amount of documents in shipping that hold certain agreements between parties is because parties do not trust each other.”(Stakeholder 2); “Logistics is a conservative sector.”(Port community system)

C.4 Organizational adoption barriers

Intra-organizational issues C1, C2, C3, I2, D, F, BA

“I am sure that some of my colleagues are more conservative towards digitization and full transparency than I am.”(Inland terminal 2)

Perceived risks of digitization

C1, C2, C3, C4, I2, D, F, A1, BA

“I am afraid that digitization/blockchain will reduce the personal touch that our customers value.”(Carrier 3) Perceived risks of full

transparency

(20)

4.1.1 How blockchain is perceived by each stakeholder group

The stakeholders that have been interviewed in this study can be arranged in five groups: Carriers (C1-4), terminals (I1, I2, D), ports & authorities (P1, P2, A1, A2, PCS), shippers (interchangeable with freight forwarders in this case) (F, S1-5) and market-experts (BA, EX).

Carriers perceive blockchain as a technology that can be used to stay competitive in the future by optimizing the efficiency of their operational processes (O.1). Hereby, they highly aim for increasing their responsiveness in the chain meaning reacting to changes and alignment of processes so that optimization of their schedules can be realized. The terminals fully agree with those opportunities but mentioned end-to-end visibility (O.3) by increased transparency and data accessibility as the most important opportunity of blockchain. This can be related to the fact that inland terminals often are an invisible spot for other parties in the chain since they are contracted by a shipper. Shippers view that data correctness (O.2) and an efficient supply chain (O.1) as an attractive solution which is quite logically explained since this stakeholder group often has a more controlling role over its supply chain by knowing their main supply chain partners. An efficient supply chain will often result in a faster lead-time which increase the shippers’ performance in serving its customers. Both ports & authorities and market-experts have another perspective on the opportunities of blockchain technology. They acknowledge O.1, O.2 and O.3 to be valuable opportunities, however, they admire that blockchain technology increased the attention for digitization in the industry (O.4). Blockchain technology has encouraged the logistics industry to rethink about data sharing and optimizing processes. In addition, this attention brings supply chains actors together who were not talking or collaborating before. “Blockchain might solve problems that are already existing for years in

logistics”(Port 1).

The challenges of blockchain technology are perceived by the different stakeholder groups as follows. Every stakeholder group that physically touches the container, thus carriers, terminals and shippers are mostly concerned with inter-organizational challenges (C.3). The stakeholders lack sufficient IT infrastructures to fully adopt blockchain technology in their organizations and there is no IT integration with one another. In general collaboration between parties is lacking. Terminals are often invisible for larger players or contracted by larger players in the market: “It is really hard for us to bring all parties around

the table”(Deep sea terminal) and “It took years of negotiation to achieve improvement initiatives when multiple parties are involved”(Inland terminal 2). Also, environmental challenges are a concern since the

(21)

highlight that the interests of supply chain actors should be managed first before developing industry-wide blockchain applications. Besides, there are large differences between carriers when evaluating organizational adoption barriers (C.4). Larger carriers have to deal with conflicting views within the company whereas smaller carriers are more concerned about the perceived risks of digitization such as losing personal contact and flexibility. The immaturity of blockchain technology (C.1) is mentioned by every stakeholder as an important challenge. The operational pressure is really high in container shipping while having low profit margins. Therefore, organizations are cautious with taking high risks. They would like to investigate the benefits first, for instance by reviewing proof-of-concepts, before investing assets and money in a large blockchain project. Last, trust issues (C.2) and specifically mistrust in a blockchain platform is a large concern of parties that are highly affected by the high competiveness of the shipping industry. Carriers, freight forwarders and the port community system are cautious with sharing data since data might contain competitor-sensitive information.

4.2 Relationships in the container shipping supply chain

Based on the data analysis and observation/conversations within the focal company, the relationships between the shipper (interchangeable with freight forwarder) with the inland terminal, deep sea terminal and carrier are interesting to highlight. Also, the position of the port community system will be explained here. Additionally, the overarching organizations such as customs, ports and other authorities will be discussed concerning their relationships in the supply chain and perspective towards blockchain technology.

4.2.1 The relationship between shipper, inland terminal, deep sea terminal and carrier

(22)

As Figure 5 shows, the relationship between the inland terminal and deep sea terminal is rather static and communication between them is perceived low since the communication flows via the shipper and carrier. The inland terminal is an invisible party in the chain: “One of the issues that blockchain might solve is the

invisibility of our operations of loading the container at the inland terminal to unloading of the barge at deep sea terminal. This is invisible to all parties we do business with”(Inland terminal 1). This results in

many phone calls and frustrations where the shipper needs to solve or act as an intermediary communication party about operational processes between the inland terminal and the deep sea terminal or carrier. Again, the deep sea terminal does not have direct contact with the shipper but this contact flows either via the carrier or PCS. “We just see containers. Often, we do not know which customer is behind a containers and

what kind of product is in there”(Deep sea terminal).

Expected change by blockchain technology

As a result of blockchain technology, operational processes will be reduced at the shipper since operational relationships between the inland terminal, deep sea terminal and carrier will be tighter. In other words, the shipper does not have to act as a communication intermediary about operational issues and the inland terminal becomes more visible. This is experienced as a positive change. “I think that the information of

the deep sea terminal can be really helpful for our processes. The relationship between deep sea terminal and inland terminal might improve although this depends how much information the deep sea terminal is willing to share with us”(Inland terminal 2). The same situation will apply for the relationship between the

inland terminal and carrier although a shift at the carrier side can be noticed from traditional shipping to offering more end-to-end solutions. “The conservative business models of carriers are under pressure since

companies as Amazon could take over the whole industry if they would like to. We have to focus on end-to-end solutions to stay competitive in the future”(Carrier 2). Another carrier mentioned that the increase in

Figure 5: Current relationships between Shipper, Inland Terminal, Carrier, Deep Sea Terminal and PCS

(23)

digitization will cause shifts between activities of freight forwarders and carriers. “Digitization will also

affect the structure of the sector: Carriers will become freight forwarders and freight forwarders will acquire carriers”(Carrier 4). Furthermore, the deep sea terminal views the increased visibility in the chain

as an opportunity for building new relationships, therefore generating more revenue by attracting new customers. “Not only carriers can attract customers but deep sea terminals can also attract customers

when knowing the customer behind the container”(Deep sea terminal). However, this information is

competitor-sensitive information about the relationships between carriers and its customers, shippers.

4.2.2 The position of the port community system

According to IT facilitator and a blockchain expert, it is expected that blockchain impacts the ascribed situation in a way that communication and information will directly flow to the designated stakeholders via the blockchain network, see Figure 6. “Blockchain is a network of connected databases using distributed

ledger technique. This means that when something is changed in one database, this will also change in the other ones. Changes or updates are not needed to send in a message anymore”(Expert). As mentioned

before, the PCS acts as an intermediary party for processing documents and information to the rightful receiver/sender. In the situation of blockchain, the position of PCS as central database is questionable to be valuable for the container shipping supply chain when end-to-end visibility is offered by blockchain technology. This is also noticed by other stakeholders. “In the end, the PCS might not be necessary as a

service as information is received directly from deep sea terminal”(Inland terminal 2). On the other hand,

the PCS views blockchain technology as an opportunity for new business models. “When looking closely

at the type of processes in blockchain, then you also have to think about new business models”(Port

community system). The stakeholder acknowledges its difficult position as both blockchain and PCS are databases. However, PCS could take the role of managing the organizational structure above the technology blockchain meaning that the PCS could manage the different interest in establishing data standards and business rules that are needed in a blockchain platform.

4.2.3 The relationships of ports, customs and other authorities

The overarching stakeholders in the container shipping supply chain are ports, customs and other authorities. Ports aim to increase its attractiveness by providing blockchain enabled solutions that can used by all parties. “I notice a shift in the business models of ports shift towards a more facilitating role in

digitizing processes for all logistics partners”(Port 1). Hereby, ports will become more attractive for

(24)

Last, customs and Dutch authorities are trying to find their way in the whole blockchain story. “We expect

that the number of products in one consignment will decrease, however the number of p roducts will increase. Therefore, we need to look into opportunities of how customs can cope with the increasing number of declarations while maintaining a high performance on selecting the right consignments for checks”(Dutch customs). Whereas the Dutch customs understand the need for digitization and increased

transparency, the African customs are more conservative towards new technologies. The informant of African customs mentioned that the workforce at African customs’ offices was often occupied by older generations, meaning generations that were not well-known with the internet and smartphones. In general, Dutch authorities already possess a high digital level and advanced IT systems. Although, they might not see opportunities of blockchain technology in their own organization, they understand the value of blockchain technology for the entire supply chain. “Looking at the entire chain, advantages can be seen.

When we confirm that certain document to be correct, every other stakeholder can directly see this. The process of forwarding documents across the chain is therefore unnecessary when using blockchain”(Dutch

authority). The relationship between Dutch authorities and the business is tight and not expected to change using blockchain. This is because Dutch authorities are convinced that they can still add value to the container shipping supply chain using blockchain as in the current situation.

5 Discussion

(25)

be argued that not only the role and stage in the supply chain affect how stakeholders perceive blockchain technology but also other factors such as firm size and level of competitiveness.

Existing literature on the impact of blockchain technology is mostly conceptual in nature whereby scholars discuss possible changes in current business models and inter-organizational relationships when firms adopt blockchain technology (Nowiński & Kozma, 2017; Treiblmaier, 2018). The findings of this thesis show how blockchain will change certain relationships and business models which contributes to the existing conceptual literature. Nowiński & Kozma (2017) proposed that blockchain will eliminate the need for intermediary parties. The findings clearly show that the position of the PCS in the container shipping supply chain is questionable due to blockchain technology. “Why would we use a central database as PCS if we

can directly exchange documents via a blockchain platform?”(Shipper 1). However, blockchain technology

might also stimulate the development of new business models where PCS might take a new role in the container shipping supply chain. In light of immaturity of blockchain technology, there might be a need for managing the different interests within the blockchain network in developing data standards for instance. Therefore, the PCS will not be eliminated but its role in the chain will be changed. Second, Treiblmaier (2018) argued that inter-organizational relationships might change when implementing blockchain technology in supply chains. The findings of this thesis show that the quality of operational relationships within the container shipping supply chain will be enhanced when parties exchange real-time information. Especially, the direct connection via blockchain is expect to result in operational efficiency and mutual understandings. “I would prefer receiving the same information from the carrier as I would receive now

from shipper about carriers’ activities. This would make our processes more efficient, for instance, changes in terminals will directly be send through.”(Inland terminal 2). New relationships will be developed such

as a direct relationship between deep see terminals and shippers as well between inland terminals and carriers. The nature of inter-organizational relationship between shippers and its supply chain partners are expected to change from a role as communication intermediary for operations into a more controlling and commercial role. This is perceived as an profitable opportunity by the shipper as it results in more efficient processes by reducing human involvement.

(26)

does not affect the behavioral intention to adopt blockchain technology in a supply chain context (Queiroz & Wamba, 2019). The authors assumed that this finding originated from the argument that the interviewees were reluctant to share information among supply chain partners. The findings of this thesis provide a more extensive argument why trust between supply chain stakeholders does not affect the behavioral intention to adopt blockchain. It was found that supply chain stakeholders do not value increased trust as a positive consequence or beneficial opportunity of blockchain technology in supply chains. Trust was only mentioned as a likely opportunity of blockchain technology in two out of 21 interviews that were conducted. In any of the other 19 interviewees, trust was not mentioned as an opportunity but as a challenge of adopting blockchain technology. The interviewees view trust among supply chain stakeholders as really complex that cannot simply be increased by an IT system. Additionally, stakeholders argued that the container shipping is characterized by low levels trust and transparency since stakeholders are afraid to lose their business. “There is a lot of mistrust about what is happening with information you have shared and who is

allowed to see that information. No one wants to see other parties taking over your business”(Carrier 4).

The findings also show that mistrust issues are expected since companies need to collaborate with competitors in a blockchain platform. To conclude, it can be argued that trust between supply chain stakeholders is acting as an enabler of blockchain adoption so trust between supply chain stakeholders should already exist before experiencing an increase in trust by blockchain adoption. If minimum to no trust is perceived between supply chain stakeholder, then blockchain technology has little to no effect on trust between supply chain stakeholders.

(27)

5.1 Managerial implications

The outcome of this thesis brings essential insights for organizations and managers that explore blockchain technology in their supply chains. First, this thesis informs organizations about the opportunities and challenges of blockchain technology in a complex supply chain context as well as how blockchain is perceived by different supply chain stakeholders. Second, this study highlights the importance of evaluating different perspectives of supply chain actors towards blockchain and other digitization initiatives. For instance, the perspectives of operational parties are dissimilar than how authorities perceive blockchain technology in the supply chain. The stakeholders’ views and objectives can be taken into account when developing a “proof of concept”-blockchain system that satisfies the interests of all stakeholders involved. Third, managers should realize that the lack of trust between supply chain actors does not stimulate blockchain adoption and digitization across the entire supply chain. Innovation and digitization is highly needed and demanded by supply chain stakeholders in order to achieve operational efficiency. However, at the same time, this innovation and digitization is hampered by the lack of trust among those supply chain stakeholders. A derived implication is that organizations should overcome trust and data sharing issues in order to solve industry-wide issues. For instance, the findings show that operational ties will become stronger which is interesting to evaluate in light of the massive congestion issues in ports nowadays. Consequently, organizational supply chain processes will also be improved in efficiency so that, for example, organizations could focus more on enhancing the quality of customer service or developing other competitive advantages. Last, this thesis helps organizations and managers in understanding how blockchain technology possibly change certain relationships in supply chains and business models. The expected changes can be taken into account when digitization strategies are established to anticipate and avoid failures in implementing an industry-wide (blockchain) platform across the supply chain.

5.2 Limitations and opportunities for further research

(28)

terminals, Dutch authorities and freight forwarders were interviewed. For this reason, future research could extent this research by including multiple perspectives of the three stakeholder groups aforementioned in order to get an even more comprehensive view. Given that deep sea terminals are large and powerful players within the operational relationships that lack collaboration with each other, further research among deep sea terminals is also recommended to thoroughly investigate their perspective towards blockchain technology in supply chains.

At the time of writing this thesis, the majority of interviewees intended to adopt blockchain technology but only 7/21 interviewees were directly connected to a blockchain project. This is a limitation of this thesis along with the lack of advanced blockchain knowledge among the interviewees. Only 3/21 interviewees had advanced knowledge of blockchains’ functionalities. Therefore, the findings in this thesis are rather future-focused regarding the change of inter-organizational supply chain relationships when supply chain actors adopt blockchain technology. The expected change cannot be observed (yet) in real-life situations since blockchain applications are not implemented on a large-scale. Future research could therefore focus on the following aspects. First, it would be interesting to explore finished proof-of-concepts in supply chains in order to understand the full impact of blockchain technology on inter-organizational supply chain relationships. For instance, how will the role of shippers/freight forwarders be influenced when an industry-wide blockchain platform is adopted? The same applies for the role of the port community system given the challenging position as an intermediary IT system. Second, many architecture design decisions need to be made that determine the use of blockchain. This shows that there is a tendency towards managing and developing an organizational structure whereas blockchain demand for a peer-to-peer network structure. This is highly interesting for future research. Especially, design science research seems to be applicable for understanding which design issues determine the benefits and limitations of blockchain in container shipping supply chains.

(29)

results. Therefore, future research is demanded in other industries where trust among supply chain actors is perceived higher.

6 Conclusion

In literature, blockchain technology has been acknowledged by many scholars to be valuable for supply chain management but empirical research was lacking. This research aimed to explore the opportunities and challenges of blockchain technology in supply chains from a stakeholders’ perspective. It was grounded in literature to investigate the changes in inter-organizational supply chain relationships when supply chain actors (intent) to adopt blockchain technology. A single case study approach was followed where interviews were conducted with almost every stakeholder in the container shipping supply chain.

The first research question addressed in this thesis led to the following results. Four opportunities of blockchain technology in supply chains were found: efficiency gain, data correctness, end-to-end supply chain visibility and increased attention for digitization. Immaturity of blockchain, trust issues, inter-organizational challenges and inter-organizational adoption barriers were found to be challenges of implementing blockchain technology in the supply chain. The analysis found that the aforementioned opportunities and challenges were perceived differently by various stakeholder groups depending whether they had an operational role or more controlling, overarching role within the chain. The operational stakeholders were more interested in enhancing efficiency throughout the chain via digitization than other stakeholders. However, also some similarities existed. For instance, all stakeholders mentioned immaturity of blockchain as an important challenge which hampered them for investing in blockchain projects. The second research question was derived from literature whereby a change was expected in the nature and quality of inter-organizational relationships by blockchain adoption in supply chains. This thesis empirically found the following changes in both the nature and quality of certain relationships between supply chain stakeholders. The operational relationships between inland terminals, deep sea terminals and carriers will become tighter due to the increase in operational efficiency. The role of the shipper might change into a more commercial and controlling role since blockchain technology enables direct communication between operational partners. The position of the port community system is questionable by blockchain but this technology also allows for new business opportunities for the port community system.

(30)

(31)

7 References

Abeyratne, S. A., & Monfared, R. P. (2016). Blockchain ready manufacturing supply chain using distributed ledger. International Journal of Research in Engineering, 05(09), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.15623/ijret.2016.0509001

Chen, S., Shi, R., Ren, Z., Yan, J., Shi, Y., & Zhang, J. (2017, November). A Blockchain-based supply chain quality management framework. In e-Business Engineering (ICEBE), 2017 IEEE 14th International Conference on (pp. 172-176). IEEE.

Clauson, K. A., Breeden, E. A., Davidson, C., & Mackey, T. K. (2018). Leveraging Blockchain Technology to Enhance Supply Chain Management in Healthcare. Blockchain in Healthcare Today.

Dobrovnik, M., Herold, D., Fürst, E., & Kummer, S. (2018). Blockchain for and in Logistics: What to Adopt and Where to Start. Logistics, 2(3), 18.

Forbes. (2018). “IBM-Maersk Blockchain Platform Adds 92 Clients As Part Of Global Launch.”

Forbes.com. Retrieved from:

https://www-forbes- com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2018/08/09/ibm-maersk-blockchain-platform-adds-92-clients-as-part-of-global-launch-1/amp/

Francisco, K., & Swanson, D. (2018). The supply chain has no clothes: technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Logistics, 2(1), 2.

Fransoo, J. C., & Lee, C. Y. (2013). The critical role of ocean container transport in global supply chain performance. Production and Operations Management, 22(2), 253-268.

Gnimpieba, Z. D. R., Nait-Sidi-Moh, A., Durand, D., & Fortin, J. (2015). Using Internet of Things technologies for a collaborative supply chain: Application to tracking of pallets and containers.

Procedia Computer Science, 56, 550-557.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational research methods, 16(1), 15-31.

Hyperledger – Open Source Blockchain Technologies. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.hyperledger.org/

Iansiti, M., & Lakhani, K. R. (2017). The truth about blockchain. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 118-127.

Jensen, T., Vatrapu, R., & Bjørn‐Andersen, N. (2017). Avocados crossing borders: The problem of runaway objects and the solution of a shipping information pipeline for improving international trade.

Information Systems Journal, 28(2), 408-438.

(32)

Karlsson, C. (Ed.). (2016). Research methods for operations management. Second Edition. Routledge. Korpela, K., Hallikas, J., & Dahlberg, T. (2017, January). Digital supply chain transformation toward

blockchain integration. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system

sciences.

Kouhizadeh, M., & Sarkis, J. (2018). Blockchain Practices, Potentials, and Perspectives in Greening Supply Chains. Sustainability, 10(10), 3652.

Kshetri, N. (2018). Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives. International

Journal of Information Management, 39, 80-89.

Lewis, R., McPartland, J., & Ranjan, R. (2017). Blockchain and financial market innovation. Economic

Perspectives, (7), 2-12.

Loklindt, C., Moeller, M. P., & Kinra, A. (2018, February). How Blockchain Could Be Implemented for Exchanging Documentation in the Shipping Industry. In International Conference on Dynamics in

Logistics (pp. 194-198). Springer, Cham.

Morabito, V. (2017). Business Innovation Through Blockchain. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Nakamoto S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. http://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf Nærland, K., Müller-Bloch, C., Beck, R., & Palmund, S. (2017). Blockchain to Rule the Waves-Nascent

Design Principles for Reducing Risk and Uncertainty in Decentralized Environments. In Proceedings/International Conference on Information Systems (icis).

Nowiński, W., & Kozma, M. (2017). How Can Blockchain Technology Disrupt the Existing Business Models?. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 5(3), 173-188.

Peck, M. E. (2017). Blockchains: How they work and why they'll change the world. IEEE spectrum, 54(10), 26-35.

Peters, G. W., & Panayi, E. (2016). Understanding modern banking ledgers through blockchain technologies: Future of transaction processing and smart contracts on the internet of money. In Banking

Beyond Banks and Money (pp. 239-278). Springer, Cham.

Petersen, M. & Hackius, N. (2017) Blockchain in Logistics and SCM: Trick or Treat? In Proceedings of

Hamburg International Conference of Logistics, 2017.

Queiroz, M. M., & Wamba, S. F. (2019). Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. International Journal of Information

Management, 46, 70-82.

Risius, M., & Spohrer, K. (2017). A blockchain research framework. Business & Information Systems

Engineering, 59(6), 385-409.

(33)

Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., & Shen, L. (2018). Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 1-19.

Sander, F., Semeijn, J., & Mahr, D. (2018). The acceptance of blockchain technology in meat traceability and transparency. British Food Journal, 120(9), 2066-2079.

Seebacher, S., & Schüritz, R. (2017). Blockchain technology as an enabler of service systems: A structured literature review. In International Conference on Exploring Services Science (pp. 12-23). Springer, Cham.

Tama, B. A., Kweka, B. J., Park, Y., & Rhee, K. H. (2017, August). A critical review of blockchain and its current applications. In Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (ICECOS), 2017 International

Conference on (pp. 109-113). IEEE.

Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: how the technology behind bitcoin is changing

money, business, and the world. Penguin.

Treiblmaier, H. (2018). The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: a theory-based research framework and a call for action. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 23(6), 545-559.

Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage publications

(34)

8 Appendix

8.1 Overview of relevant stakeholder groups regarding the unit of analysis

A broad view was taken during the mapping phase. The table below shows the relevant stakeholder groups and their role in the container shipping supply chain.

Stakeholder group Role in container shipping supply chain

Shipper Producer, Planning of production and shipment, Customer service, Prepare and arrange

documentation needed for shipment

Freight forwarder Arranges shipment commissioned by the shipper due to very low volumes or fast shipments.

Inland terminal/ Barge operator

Truck transport from shipper to inland terminal, Loading containers on barge, Barge transport from inland terminal to the Port

Dutch Authorities 1) Supervises cross-border trade on basis of fiscal regulations 2) Provides documentation needed for shipment

3) Secures the safety of food and other consumer goods Deep Sea

Terminal

Loading containers on deep sea tanker, Unloading barges, Planning of the loading and unloading process of ocean tankers and barges

Port Responsible for facilitating and developing the port in a way that shipping activities are

enhanced Port community

systems

Neutral IT database (central) that connects all the operating parties in the container shipping with ports and authorities

Ocean Carrier Organization that transports products from A to B in a container via the ocean

Terminal in ship-to country

Party that unloads the container of its ship in the port of destination

Customs in ship-to country/ Customs broker

Parties that check documents and container before officially enter the ship-to country of destination (import process)

Inland

Transportation Party

Company that arranges and performs transport from terminal/port to the agreed ship-to depot or final customer

Customer Places order at production subsidiary. Maintains forecast and planning

Business associations

Business association of shippers, producers and exporters that facilitates

8.2 Case Study Interview Protocol

Main research question: How do different stakeholders in a supply chain perceive the opportunities and

challenges of blockchain technology?

Date of Interview: ________________________

Interviewee’s name: ________________________

AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY OF BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY IN A SUPPLY CHAIN CONTEXT