Beyond the Blockchain Buzz
Everyone wants a transparent food supply chain. Vendors promise blockchain will deliver it. A systematic review of 50 research papers1 and evidence from pharma, logistics, and luxury goods tell us a more complicated story.
When transparency becomes a boardroom mandate
It usually starts the same way. A retailer asks for proof of origin. A consumer campaign challenges a sustainability claim. A food safety audit exposes gaps in the records of company. Or leadership reads that blockchain is ‘the future of traceability’ and wants to set up a pilot ASAP.
The pressure is real. Over the past two decades, food supply chains have grown long, global, and interdependent. Products pass through dozens of hands before they reach a shelf, exposed along the way to contamination, adulteration, fraud, and practices that fall short of what regulators and society now expect11. Transparency has moved well beyond a compliance checkbox. It is now a business expectation, a consumer demand, and increasingly a condition of market access.
Digital tools are widely seen as the answer. Sensors, QR codes, cloud platforms, artificial intelligence and blockchain. But before you sign a contract or launch a pilot, it is worth asking a harder question: will this investment actually make your supply chain more transparent — and more trusted?
The hype: blockchain as supply chain saviour
In academic research on food supply chain digitalisation, blockchain dominates the conversation. In a systematic literature review by researchers at Delft University of Technology, blockchain or distributed ledger technology appeared in 38 of 50 papers1. Blockchain offers something appealing on paper: a record of transactions, shared visibility across partners, and a technology that seems to promise trust without needing to trust everyone in the chain individually.
The proposed benefits are clear and are implemented worldwide: researchers from India, for example, combined Ethereum blockchain with IoT sensors, QR codes, and machine learning to trace milk products and flag contamination risks2. Greek olive producers tested distributed traceability apps that cut record-keeping time while improving data reliability3. In Ghana’s cocoa sector, blockchain was pitched as a way to give farmers better access to information and reduce exploitation driven by information imbalances4. During the COVID-19 disruption, fish supply chains experimented with satellite data, GPS tracking, QR codes, and blockchain to help small fisherfolk verify catch origin and build buyer confidence5.
These are genuine use cases. But the same body of research carries an important caveat: the benefits of blockchain are highly dependent on implementation and context. Many advantages described in the literature remain theoretical. Blockchain can make records harder to alter after they are entered. At the same time, it cannot guarantee that the data entered in the first place is accurate. It does not replace hygienic production practices, trained staff, or honest reporting at the farm, the processing line, or the loading dock.
“Technology investments are not enough. Supply chain actors need a mindset shift — and a shared understanding of what transparency means in their context.”1
There is also a subtler risk called false transparency. When powerful actors control what gets recorded and who can see it, a blockchain system can look open while remaining selectively closed. A traceability platform used only internally may improve operational control without sharing anything meaningful with consumers or weaker partners. Decentralised technology deployed in a centralised way may satisfy a marketing brief without changing how information actually flows.
The most promising direction in recent research is not blockchain on its own, but deliberate combinations of tools. Blockchain for immutability. IoT sensors and RFID tags to capture what happens in the physical world. AI to analyse patterns and flag risks. Cloud platforms and agreed data standards to make systems talk to each other. In one traditional bakery traceability study, blockchain was paired with RFID to monitor process parameters and reduce manual data-entry errors — a reminder that manual entry remains one of the weakest links in any digital traceability chain6. The lesson for food professionals is consistent: think in systems, not slogans.
What neighbouring sectors have already learned
Food is not the only industry wrestling with this question. A look at neighbouring sectors, like pharmaceutical, logistics, or luxury goods reveals a familiar pattern: promising pilots, persistent trust gaps, and adoption slowed by factors that no ledger can solve alone.
In pharmaceutical supply chains, industry consortia such as MediLedger, bringing together 24 leading manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, tested whether blockchain could support interoperable, package-level drug traceability under US drug supply chain security requirements. The consortium demonstrated that blockchain can work, but concluded there is no single technological silver bullet7. Success required governance models, clear data standards, integration with existing systems, and privacy mechanisms that let partners verify transactions without exposing proprietary data.
In logistics and maritime trade, the barriers echo those found in food. Stakeholders often hesitate to share commercially sensitive data. Integration with legacy systems is costly and slow. Without agreed standards and leadership from influential industry players, even well-designed pilots stall at the proof-of-concept stage. Research on food supply chain digitalisation similarly identifies data silos, resistance to change, and the digital divide at primary production as recurring obstacles1.
In luxury goods and fashion, where counterfeiting and provenance verification mirror food’s authenticity challenges, blockchain pilots aim to trace materials from farm or tannery to finished product and certify sustainable practices. Yet real-world uptake remains limited by integration costs, scalability of decentralised systems, financial constraints among suppliers, and the absence of common data standards across complex, multi-layered supply networks8.
Across sectors, a consistent lesson emerges. Blockchain can reduce information asymmetry and give principals greater oversight of agents in the chain9. At the same time, control mechanisms built into these systems can also erode trust among partners who feel surveilled rather than collaborated with.
Why people do not believe your claims
Trust failures in food supply chains rarely begin with missing software. They begin with uneven information. Some actors know more than others — about sourcing, processing conditions, sustainability performance, or pricing. Centralised systems tend to concentrate that knowledge with the largest players, while farmers, smaller processors, and consumers are sometimes lacking information and support.
Research on food supply chain transparency points to what actually moves the needle1. Transparency and traceability work best together10 while mapping the full chain and following individual products through it. Information must be shared intentionally, clearly, and accurately, not simply dumped into a portal. Weaker actors in the chain, need genuine access to data and control over who uses it. Technology only supports trust when it is embedded in collaboration, e.g., when partners agree on what to measure, who owns the data, and how disputes are handled.
Blockchain can play a great role in this picture by supporting distributed, verifiable records among partners who are willing to cooperate. It cannot replace that willingness. Trust is built through fair governance, credible practices on the ground, and proof that the information behind a claim can withstand scrutiny.
A realistic path for food professionals
Treating digital transparency as a strategic commitment, rather than a software purchase, changes how investments should be evaluated. Start with the problem, not the platform. Are you trying to speed up recalls, prove origin, manage supplier risk, substantiate sustainability claims, or rebuild consumer confidence? Each goal implies different data needs and different technology choices.
Before committing to blockchain specifically, ask what data you already hold, where it breaks down, and whether your first priority is immutability or data quality at source. Piloting with the systems and partners you have and ensuring standards are met by the retailers and regulators will increase the chances of success.
The research is sending us a clear message: no technology delivers transparency by default. The professionals who get this right will not be the ones who adopt blockchain first. They will be the ones who define what transparency means in their chain, earn trust through credible information, and choose tools that fit the problem.
Further reading
1 Zorer, E., Janssen, M., Tan, S. L., & Tuler de Oliveira, M. (2024). The Narratives of Transparency in Food Supply Chain Digitalisation: A Systematic Literature Review. In: IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-72234-9_36
2 Khanna, A., Jain, S., Burgio, A., Bolshev, V., & Panchenko, V. (2022). Blockchain-enabled supply chain platform for Indian dairy industry: safety and traceability. Foods, 11(17), 2716. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11172716
3 Kechagias, E. P., Gayialis, S. P., Papadopoulos, G. A., & Papoutsis, G. (2023). An ethereum-based distributed application for enhancing food supply chain traceability. Foods, 12(6), 1220. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061220
4 Musah, S., Medeni, T. D., & Soylu, D. (2019). Assessment of role of innovative technology through blockchain technology in Ghana’s Cocoa Beans food supply chains. In: 2019 3rd International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Technologies (ISMSIT), pp. 1–12. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMSIT.2019.8932936
5 Sengupta, T., Narayanamurthy, G., Moser, R., Pereira, V., & Bhattacharjee, D. (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. Information Systems Frontiers, 24(4), 1107–1123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10228-3
6 Cocco, L., et al. (2021). A blockchain-based traceability system in agri-food SME: case study of a traditional bakery. IEEE Access, 9, 62899–62915. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3074874
7 MediLedger Project. DSCSA Pilot Project Final Report (submitted to FDA).
8 Islayem, R., Hasan, H. R., Musamih, A., Salah, K., & Jayaraman, R. (2025). Blockchain-based trusted traceability and sustainability certification of leather products. PLoS ONE, 20(9), e0333192. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0333192
9 Jeanneret Medina, M., Baudet, C., & Lebraty, J.-F. (2024). Blockchain and agency theory in supply chain management: A question of trust. International Journal of Information Management, 75, 102747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102747
10 Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Del Vecchio, P., Oropallo, E., & Secundo, G. (2022). Blockchain technology for bridging trust, traceability and transparency in circular supply chain. Information & Management, 59(7), 103508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103508
11 Hema, V. S. V., & Manickavasagan, A. (2024). Blockchain implementation for food safety in supply chain: A review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 23(3), e70002. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70002
