Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The study investigates the impact of strategic purchasing (SP) on manufacturing firms’ economic, environmental, and social sustainability. It also examines the moderating impact of blockchain technology (BCT) between SP and sustainability performance. The study additionally applied importance-performance map analysis (IPMA) to analyze BCT benefits to sustainability performance in Jordanian manufacturing sector. The study is quantitative in nature, and the data collected through a structured questionnaire from managers at different levels of management within manufacturing firms in Jordan resulted in 316 responses. The results of the study showed that SP has a significant and positive impact on all dimensions of sustainability performance. Additionally, the study revealed that BCT has a significant moderating impact on the relationship between SP and sustainability performance. Finally, the study identified BCT benefits importance that affect each type of sustainability performance along with their priorities. This study made a theoretical contribution by developing a framework that will help researchers gain a better understanding of the SP, BCT, and sustainable performance. Moreover, the study provided practical insights for strategic decision-making in the manufacturing sector. It highlighted SP’s role in sustainability performance and how companies can invest in BCT to improve sustainability. The study warns against generalizability and emphasizes the need to conduct the study in specific industries or countries.

Plain language summary

Improving the sustainable performance of manufacturing firms through strategic purchasing and blockchain technology

The study examines how strategic purchasing (SP) from different suppliers affects manufacturing firms’ economic, environmental, and social sustainability performance. It also examines how blockchain technology (BCT) enhance the relationship between SP and sustainability performance. Additionally, the study examined BCT benefits to Jordanian manufacturing sustainability performance using importance-performance map analysis (IPMA) that show the priority of investment for BCT. A questionnaire was used to collect 316 responses from managers at various levels in Jordanian manufacturing firms. The study found that SP practices improve all sustainability performance dimensions and BCT significantly enhances the SP-sustainability performance relationship. The study concluded that BCT benefits affect each type of sustainability performance with different priorities. This study recommended that firms adapt and innovate in changing environments based on their available resources and they should prioritize BCT investments based on sustainability goals. To ensure reliability and generalizability, the study recommends conducting the study in other industries or countries.

Keywords

strategic purchasing blockchain sustainability manufacturing sustainable development

Introduction

The concept of strategic purchasing (SP) encompasses a comprehensive framework that extends beyond the fundamental components of purchasing (Althabatah et al., 2023; Patrucco et al., 2023). The main goal of SP is to gain and utilize reliable information to reduce supply errors, control costs, and offer support to the procurement team at every stage of the purchasing process (Allal-Chérif et al., 2021; Greay et al., 2020). Additionally, SP is crucial to other internal departments within the firm. Effective communication and cooperation among procurement and different internal departments can help in many functions such as new product development, marketing, manufacturing, quality, and design (Arora et al., 2020). Moreover, SP even focuses on the transactional tasks performed during the production stages. As per Schütz et al. (2020), these activities involve ways to cut costs in areas like bulk purchases, and purchase order processes.

SP activities can enhance the firm sustainability performance and by incorporating technology and effective data management, the adoption of sustainable business practices can be improved (Arora et al., 2020; S. A. R. Khan et al., 2022). Nowadays, an increasing number of businesses are adopting automation and digitization in their purchasing procedures, resulting in a reduction of paper waste and enhanced data management (Jum’a, Zimon, & Madzik, 2024; Singh & Chan, 2022). According to the study of Hallikas et al. (2021), digitalized purchasing processes help manage real-time data and analyze trends. This allows for being proactive in conducting sustainable actions. Therefore, using technologies in the SP is necessary for improving sustainability performances. The study of Seyedghorban et al. (2020), emphasized that the increasing use of digital technology in purchasing has prompted numerous companies to optimize their operations for better efficiency and effectiveness.

As highlighted by Jum’a (2023), blockchain technology (BCT) has the potential to significantly enhance firm performance. Focusing on implementing SP practices is decisive for organizations looking to enhance their sustainability performance. The adoption of BCT can significantly help in achieving this enhanced performance (Khan, Godil et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2022). According to the study of Jum’a et al. (2022), sustainable performance that is also known as the triple bottom line consists of three main dimensions: economic, environmental, and social. These dimensions are used to evaluate the sustainability of a company’s operations in various aspects. The sustainability dimensions include the organization’s reliance on limited resources, waste management, employee engagement, workplace management, compliance with regulations, and positive impacts on the environment and local community (Jum’a, Zimon, & Madzik, 2024; Long et al., 2023). Previous studies indicated that the integration of BCT and its associated advancements in technology can have an impact on an organization’s ability to conduct economically viable and sustainable operations (Z. P. Li et al., 2021; Khan, Zia-ul-haq, et al., 2021; Yin & Ran, 2021).

Since there has been a noticeable shift toward digitalization in the purchasing field, extensive research has focused on the impact of SP on organizational sustainability (Hallikas et al., 2021; Kunkel et al., 2022; Wehrle et al., 2022). However, research is limited on the relationship between SP and sustainability performance along with the impact of technology on this relationship (Afum et al., 2020; Denicolai et al., 2021; S. A. R. Khan et al., 2022; Y. Li et al., 2020). Thus, this study aims to fill the existing research gap by investigating the impact of SP on sustainability, and the moderating impact of BCT between SP and sustainability performance. This study provides a valuable contribution because of the limited empirical research on the moderating impact of BCT on the association between SP and sustainability (Chin et al., 2021; Kamble et al., 2023; Wamba et al., 2020). Additionally, the study aims to explore the importance of BCT benefits in relation to each type of sustainability performance using the importance-performance map analysis (IPMA), which considered a contribution for an additional gap in the existing literature.

This study made use of two theories, namely dynamic capabilities theory (DCT) and resource-based view (RBV). The choice of DCT and RBV as fundamental theories arises from their complementary viewpoints on organizational adaptation and resource optimization. DCT is well-suited for this study because it highlights the importance of organizational flexibility and innovation in addressing rapidly evolving sustainability challenges, which is essential for the adoption of BCT to achieve sustainable performance (Lenuwat & Boon-itt, 2022). Conversely, the RBV emphasizes the strategic deployment of internal resources, including BCT investments, to develop capabilities that provide competitive advantages within the sustainability framework (Ullah & Narain, 2021). These theories collectively offer a comprehensive framework for analyzing the role of dynamic capabilities and resource management in attaining sustainability objectives. In addition, using DCT and RBV also resonates with the emerging consensus that sustainability is not reactive accommodation to external stakeholder pressure; but rather requires strategic positioning and resource commitment within a firm (Jum’a, Zimon, & Madzik, 2024). DCT provides some explanation of how firms can constantly adapt their practices and embed the BCT to strengthen sustainability outcomes. In contrast, RBV emphasizes the importance of valuable unique internal resources like technology skills and knowledge in creating for sustained competitive advantage (Ullah & Narain, 2021). Together, these theories offer a powerful frame for understanding how firms use both dynamic capabilities and firm-specific assets to develop staying powerful in dynamic markets.

Accordingly, SP has been an important factor changing sustainability performance for manufacturing companies especially in Jordan. SP strongly focuses on long-term suppliers relationships, cost-effectiveness and resource utilization, which are the vital conditions for sustainable operations (S. A. R. Khan et al., 2023). However, the BCT substantiates this relationship through supply chain transparency, traceability, and accountability, these features are not present in this relationship (Jum’a, 2023). According to research, BCT can reduce problems concerning unethical practices and increase data accuracy while supporting the compliance with environmental standards, thereby increasing the effect of SP on sustainability performance (Rauniyar et al., 2023). Of the numerous advantages of BCT, there are opportunities like real-time data sharing, enhanced trust between players and reduced operation inefficiencies that correlate directly with the sustainability agenda of manufacturing organizations (S. A. R. Khan et al., 2022). The synergistic effects between SP and BCT highlight the mutual significance of both initiatives toward ensuring sustainability in Jordans manufacturing industry (Kamble et al., 2023; Rauniyar et al., 2023).

Thus, the following research questions aim to fill the gap in the literature by exploring the impact of SP on sustainability performance and the moderating role of BCT since this field remains underexplored in the context of manufacturing industries in developing countries: Is there a significant relationship between SP and sustainability performance? To what extent does BCT influence the association between SP and sustainability? And what BCT benefits could be of most priority to sustainability performance of manufacturing firms? The paper is divided into different sections. The second section focuses on the literature review, which focuses on previous research relevant to the study’s aims. Next, the paper presents the proposed hypotheses alongside the conceptual model. In the third section, we explain the methodology employed for this study. In section four, the study’s outcomes and discussions will be presented. After that, in section five we will present the study’s limitations and conclusions.

Literature Review

The Relationship Between SP and BCT

There has been an increasing interest in examining the effects of BCT, a form of distributed ledger technology, on SP. SP is defined as an approach that measures the effectiveness of how buying goods or services from suppliers aligns with your overall objectives and strategic plan (Patrucco et al., 2023). This includes selecting suppliers and building relationships with them that not only emphasize cost savings but also quality, sustainability, and risk management (Patrucco et al., 2023). On the other hand, blockchain is essentially a digital platform that facilitates a transparent and immutable record of transactions, where all the participants have the capability to see each change made to the ledger and where these changes are made only by consensus of the participants (Yadav et al., 2022). Also, it facilitates automated “smart contracts,” where contractual clauses and their implementation can be self-executed by the BCT, thus lessening the opportunity for any party in the supply chain (SC) of circumventing the stated objectives and practices in the contract (Drummer & Neumann, 2020). It can also help to check the completion of the terms of the contract and make self-execute the contractual enforcement upon the occurrence of a pre-specified condition, and decentralize the procurement process (Omar et al., 2021).

Furthermore, blockchain helps to relieve the problems of fake materials in any stage of their life cycle within the SC management, by supplying a powerful platform to track and check the validity and the root of a material (Jum’a, 2023; Liu et al., 2021). By ensuring materials safety, this will accomplish the aim of enhancing the operation and effectiveness in the physical management of renewable and non-renewable resources (Kumar et al., 2023). Blockchain delivers excellent promises in helping procurement processes to be effective and significant in seeking the best for public interest—reaching sustainable and environmentally favorable results in today’s procurement initiatives (Arora et al., 2020). All the mentioned potentials from blockchain empowerment provide viable and groundbreaking means of improving the procurement treatments. It signifies that the chance of altering the whole style of procurement from a procedure-based process into an approach based strategic initiative might be realized (Gunasekara et al., 2022).

Such dynamic shift in the belief of blockchain and the potential benefits for the reform in procurement management provide further justifications and supportive discussions to policy makers and analysts in the procurement area (Varriale et al., 2021). Finally, international regulatory bodies are promoting harmonization and raising the credibility of not only procurement procedures but also the accomplishment in the aspirations of an open and agnostic procurement landscape (Aslam et al., 2022). Blockchain presents itself as a fantastic facilitator and a catalyst for the modernization in the procurement procedures (Rane & Thakker, 2020).

SP and Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability refers to the practices that make companies economically sustainable. They entail being efficient with the resources over time to support an economic growth and stability in a long term period (Jum’a et al., 2022). Therefore, the best way to reduce costs through purchasing is to use spending analysis. This is a process that involves so many steps including collecting data, analyzing the data to identify saving opportunities and measuring the realized saving (Allal-Chérif et al., 2021). Spend analysis is also a form of a risk management process and helps to reduce the companies’ exposure to risk such as fraudulent activities (Luo, 2022). When the right analysis is done, it creates efficiency in purchasing and that contributes to an overall efficiency and profit maximization in the whole SC (Jing et al., 2021). The contribution of SP has been measured with four purchasing cost indicators, namely, the total purchasing cost, the process cost, the production cost, and the product cost (Tarigan & Siagian, 2021).

Blockchain has the potential to enhance the procurement process and bring about improvements in sustainability and economic performance, as highlighted by Rane and Thakker (2020). Using blockchains for procurement provides a significant benefit in terms of transparency and traceability (Özkan et al., 2021). Through meticulous selection of the right material and merchandise level, it is feasible to meet the given requirements while reducing waste and ultimately cutting costs (Jum'a & Bushnaq, 2024). Moreover, considering the economic impact of SP on sustainability can improve operational efficiency and financial stability, leading to the creation of value that meets industry standards. As a result, waste is reduced and costs are minimized (Arora et al., 2020; S. Chen et al., 2023).

Currently, companies are implementing this online process by utilizing sophisticated systems. In this kind of circumstance, BCT adoption is forecasted to take the conventional procurement to new heights. This is because procurement regulations frequently vary between different areas and states, necessitating the frequent requirement of adaptability to handle quite different procurement requirements (Kamble et al., 2021; Tezel et al., 2020).

SP plays a crucial role in a company’s economic performance by effectively managing the procurement process and optimizing costs (Tarigan & Siagian, 2021). The usage of BCT in procurement will serve to facilitate the capacity to comprehensive international contracts concerning such things as consulting work and construction agreements by providing a transparent and permanent listing of the procurement procedure (Gunasekara et al., 2022). This might have an excellent financial incentive for both buyers and vendors equally. On the one hand, the surrender of an international contract would be streamlined—saving money and time while increasing efficiency and improving SC performance (Datta et al., 2023). On the flip side, using blockchain with a permanent record of the procurement procedure listed from start until conclusion, procurement managers who follow the conventional procurement process in addition to the specific rules very unique to a given job, reap the benefit of an increased quantity of comfort letters in these kinds of jobs (Choi et al., 2020). Hence, based on the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is suggested:

Hypothesis H1. SP has a positive and significant impact on economic performance.

SP and Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability involves practices that keep the environment sustainable. These practices minimize negative impact on the environment, helping ensure natural resources are used in a way that not only meets current needs but does so whilst ensuring future generations (Jum’a et al., 2021). Consequently, companies have increasingly prioritized the procurement of sustainable materials to guarantee environmentally conscious manufacturing (Jum’a et al., 2021; S. A. R. Khan et al., 2022). According to Colorado et al. (2020), sustainable materials refer to those that undergo extraction, processing, and manufacturing processes that aim to minimize their environmental impact. There is a growing recognition among companies regarding the importance of effectively managing the lifecycle of materials and products to minimize resource consumption and the release of toxic substances (Jum’a et al., 2021). In contrast, the practice of sourcing preservatives has detrimental effects on the environment and poses a threat to the sustainability of human, economic, and social aspects (Changotra et al., 2024).

According to S. A. R. Khan et al. (2022) and Jum’a et al. (2022), empirical research indicates that adopting sustainable material sourcing practices can be regarded as a strategic investment for the long-term. Through the reduction of material acquisition footprints and the adoption of lean thinking in regenerative material flows, industries are ipso facto ensuring that the demand for finite materials is alleviated on a large scale (Zils et al., 2023). This approach accelerates progress toward United Nations’ goals, reduces energy consumption, emissions, and promotes human health. Procuring energy-efficient products and technology from sustainable sources will minimize transmission system stress (Kumar et al., 2023).

SP practices are also linked to the conservation of natural resources to deliver on environmental sustainability (Jum’a, Alkalha, & Alaraj, 2024; S. A. R. Khan et al., 2022). It is important to understand that the extraction and use of natural resources leads to pollution through industrial waste and emission of greenhouse gases and other poisonous CO2 gases. Therefore, the more we use virgin natural resources, the more would be the ecological damage and resultant carbon footprints (Balsalobre-Lorente et al., 2021). To avoid or reduce the damage to the environment, it is necessary for organizations to take serious steps in preparing their purchasing management strategies that can reduce the use of natural resources (Khan Ahmad, & Majava, 2021). This is where SP comes in. First, by diverting the purchasing focus from looking mainly on the cost of goods and services to a strategic move where they procure goods and services that are long-term environmentally friendly (Moshtari et al., 2021). This is because suppliers and manufacturers are more receptive to green production ideas, by producing goods and services that are eco-friendly. Such a move will significantly add to the process of environmental conservation based on reducing pollution, energy-efficient production, less wastage, and reducing the depletion of virgin natural resources (Viale et al., 2022). Second, another main SP way of reducing the use of natural resources comes from the idea of embracing e-purchasing processes (Singh & Chan, 2022). E-purchasing is a general term for utilizing computer and online network technology in managing the activities starting from the purchasing itself, the procurement, and till the payment processes (Singh & Chan, 2022). Through using e-purchasing processes, companies can greatly reduce the natural resources which are tied to paperwork, pilferage common in the traditional purchasing processes, and reducing the quantity of purchased goods (Singh & Chan, 2022). Consequently, based on the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is intended:

Hypothesis H2. SP has a positive and significant impact on environmental performance.

SP and Social Sustainability

SP can have a profound social impact, especially in developing countries where multinational corporations operate complex SCs to capitalize on the low-cost factors of production (Kshetri, 2021; Nekmahmud & Fekete-Farkas, 2020; Zhang & Dong, 2020). Social sustainability focuses on the practices that allow for the maintenance of or enhancement in well being and quality of life within individuals and communities (Jum’a et al., 2022). Whether SP activities concern the sourcing of raw materials, components or finished products, by aligning the organization’s strategy with the social needs of the places and people in the locations where the corporations’ SCs operate, corporations can exercise their corporate social responsibilities and enhance local community development (Yosef et al., 2023; Zimon et al., 2020). Nowadays, consumers are increasingly considering the ethical stance of the corporations that they procure goods and services from (Du & Xie, 2021). Many studies have shown that investing in ethical sourcing not only helps in building a good image and reputation, but it also impacts profitability of the organizations by increasing customer loyalty and creating a distinctive brand in the market (Chukwu et al., 2023; Le, 2023; Shafiq et al., 2020). This allows such organizations to charge premium prices for their products and provides organizational resilience (Yuan et al., 2022).

A comprehensive understanding of the concept of SP is employed and the strategic importance of social impact on the recipient end (Charles & Benson Ochieng, 2023). Such impacts are experienced where many manufacturers, especially from western countries, have established their SCs in developing nations because of globalization (Tasnim, 2020; Yosef et al., 2023). Most of these manufacturers subscribe to the concepts of “lean manufacturing” where obtaining the least cost of inputs and materials is the main focus on the corporation’s overall purchasing strategy (Jing et al., 2021). This means the likelihood of SP with a focus on cost-effectiveness becoming popular in an enterprise is high and likely to have implications on both the business performance and the broader social impact (Greer et al., 2020).

In addition, employees are crucial for businesses, particularly in manufacturing and retail. Companies provide support through healthcare, maternity leave, training, and incentives. Welfare laws regulate creating a safe work environment, including provisions for harmful substances (Mondol, 2021). This enhances worker satisfaction, productivity, and reduces injuries, legal issues, and turnover, benefiting the business (Susanto et al., 2023). In addition to these internal measures, companies also have a responsibility to address the social impact of their purchasing decisions to promote sustainability (Lashitew, 2021). An effective way to achieve this objective is by adopting SC transparency, where companies openly share information about their vendors (Taghipour et al., 2022). Brun et al. (2020) argue that transparency is crucial for empowering consumers and communities to make informed choices and encouraging businesses to prioritize ethical concerns. According to Barros et al. (2021), the implementation of SP has the potential to empower consumers and communities, allowing them to have a say in political, social, and economic frameworks. According to Wieland (2021), the use of BCT in SCs has the potential to bring about significant changes. By providing decentralization and transparency, BCT ensures that traceability and accountability are maintained throughout the SC. Researchers have found that using BCT can potentially improve transparency in SCs and address sustainability concerns (Wieland, 2021). Consequently, based on the preceding discussion, the following hypothesis is suggested:

Hypothesis H3. SP has a positive and significant impact on social performance.

Moderating Effect of Blockchain Adoption Between SP and Sustainable Performance of Firms

BCT has been recognized as a transformational approach for improving transparency, visibility and data sharing in SCs (Jum’a, 2023; Kaushik & Jain, 2021). Blockchain thus provides an immutable digital ledger of transactions, which means it can store data securely and without risk of corruption (Centobelli et al., 2022; Taloba et al., 2021). This distinctive ability fosters trust among SC participants and provides solutions for key obstacles like data integrity and fraud prevention (Raja Santhi & Muthuswamy, 2022). BCT facilitates a more resilient and efficient ecosystem by enabling the digitalization of SCs and connecting digital operations with physical processes (Babu et al., 2022; Hockenberry, 2021).

Consequently, several studies have empirically tested the effect of BCT as a moderating variable. BCT showed the ability to moderate the positive influence in associations among different constructs like SP as a supply chain practice and sustainability performance constructs (Y. Li et al., 2020; Ijaz Baig & Yadegaridehkordi, 2024).

Through BCT, the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability performance can be greatly improved. From an economic perspective, BCT adds consumer value by enabling ethical manufacturing and minimizing possible health risks (Sunny et al., 2020). From an environmental perspective, BCT offers carbon emission tracking to reduce carbon footprints and meet regulatory compliance requirements such as ISO 14000 (Tiwari et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). From a social perspective, products, employees, and minority groups benefit from the transparent and traceable records that blockchain generates (Fernandes et al., 2023; Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020).

On the other hand, senior management’s commitment to SP practices includes the purchase of eco-friendly raw materials, the establishment of standard operating procedures (SOPs), and maintaining certifications to enhance sustainability performance (Long et al., 2023; Tiwari et al., 2020). Despite this, the effectiveness of SP practices may differ depending on the country and its economic condition, awareness, and financial viability for the practices to gain traction, especially in developing nations (Charles & Benson Ochieng, 2023). The existing practices stand reinforced with the incorporation of BCT as moderating variable, which helps with tracking product detailed information, avoidance of fraud, and quality compliance across the SC (Leng et al., 2020; Raja Santhi & Muthuswamy, 2022).

Also, the decentralized nature of blockchain makes the SCs more resilient against crash attacks, as it removes the single point of failure and identifies incorrect behaviors quickly that make them less susceptible to abuse (Babu et al., 2022; Y. Chen et al., 2021). Its smart contracts also make transactions secure and transparent, allowing tracking and accountability of product origins and distribution histories (Centobelli et al., 2022; Vegesna, 2022).

As one of the cornerstones of any economy, the manufacturing industry is under increasing pressure to adopt sustainable practices (Acerbi & Taisch, 2020). In particular, the capability of BCT to track and improve SC operations’ transparency meets these sustainability aspirations, and therefore puts blockchain as a potential moderator between SP and sustainability performance. Through the application of BCT combined with SP, manufacturing enterprises can accomplish enhanced economic, environmental, and social results and promote transparency, traceability, and accountability across their operations. The following hypotheses are presented based on the foregoing discussion.

Hypothesis H4a. BCT moderates the relationship between SP and economic performance.

Hypothesis H4b. BCT moderates the relationship between SP and environmental performance.

Hypothesis H4c. BCT moderates the relationship between SP and social performance.

Therefore, from the previous discussions, Figure 1 depicts the proposed conceptual framework for the study.

Figure 1.

The conceptual framework of the study.

Blockchain Benefits for Manufacturing Firms

There are various reasons behind our focus on manufacturing enterprises in Jordan. Firstly, the manufacturing sector is an essential component of Jordan’s economy, with a substantial share of GDP and employment (Jum’a & Bushnaq, 2024). Despite these potential benefits, sustainability remains an important aspect with challenges like resource constraints, rising energy prices, and environmental pressures (Rane & Thakker, 2020). Second, Jordan, as a developing country with scarce resources, is an excellent setting to investigate the relations between the adoption of SP and BCT on sustainability performances (Jum’a, 2023; Patrucco et al., 2023). Third, the early stage in which BCT is being adopted in Jordan provides a unique environment to better understand the influence and potential advantages of such technologies within an emerging environment (Acerbi & Taisch, 2020; Jum’a, 2023). Lastly, restricting to a single country, and a single sector minimizes variation in contextual factors, and therefore, enables a more controlled, and accurate assessment of the hypothesized relationships (Jum’a & Bushnaq, 2024).

BCT may bring many benefits to manufacturing firms in the context of SP. First, BCT provides the benefit of improving SC transparency and traceability. It allows for the creation of a permanent and easily accessible record that records all transactions taking place within the SC (Sunny et al., 2020). This technology enables manufacturers to easily track the origin and transportation of raw materials, components, and finished goods. This ensures the incoming materials authenticity and compliance with quality standards (Raja Santhi & Muthuswamy, 2022).

Moreover, BCT helps in the integration of smart contracts and automating supplier interactions, thereby simplifying supplier relationship management (Jum’a, 2023). Smart contracts possess the ability to execute predetermined conditions independently including fulfilling orders, releasing payments, and enforcing penalties for non-compliance (Bottoni et al., 2020). In addition, BCT allows for seamless inventory management by providing the ability to track inventory in real-time along the SC. Manufacturers can greatly reduce the risk of stockouts or excess inventory by gaining a thorough vision and anticipation of their stock levels. According to recent research by Gohil and Thakker (2021), adopting this approach can lead to enhanced production planning and cost reduction.

Moreover, BCT plays a vital role in ensuring quality assurance by using records that cannot be changed. With blockchain records, you can be assured that once quality assurance data is captured, it cannot be changed. As per the research conducted by Iftekhar et al. (2020), this BCT benefit provides a reliable and immutable record of quality inspections, certifications, and compliance with industry standards. In addition, BCT helps reduce counterfeiting and makes it easier to verify the authenticity of products. BCT ensures the authenticity of components and products, reducing the risk of counterfeit items entering the SC. This matter holds immense importance in sectors such as manufacturing sector, where the existence of counterfeit goods can pose safety risks or lead to legal consequences (Mhatre et al., 2023). BCT can help in achieving efficient procurement procedures. These procedures can be optimized through a decentralized database, eliminating the need for a centralized authority to manage procurement data. Manufacturing firms can achieve more efficient and streamlined procurement procedures, leading to a reduction in bureaucratic obstacles and delays (Elalaoui Elabdallaoui et al., 2021).

Data security is another BCT benefit that is significantly enhanced by cryptographic techniques, which BCT utilizes to protect data. As explained by Dwivedi et al. (2020), the adoption of BCT ensures the protection of valuable information such as intellectual property, trade secrets, and transaction details. BCT can effectively prevents unauthorized access or tampering. In addition, BCT plays a vital role in promoting collaboration with SC members. It allows for the safe and controlled sharing of data among authorized parties within the SC. As stated by Babu et al. (2022), this promotes better collaboration among manufacturers, suppliers, and other relevant parties, while ensuring the security of data. Finally, BCT plays a fundamental role in helping with regulatory compliance by offering records that can be audited. The clear and verifiable nature of BCT simplifies the process of following industry norms and standards. As per Bakarich et al. (2020), manufacturers can provide authorities with comprehensive and reliable documentation of their SC operations. Thus, based on the previous discussion, there are nine major benefits for BCT in the context of SP namely, SC transparency and traceability, supplier smart contracts, inventory real-time tracking, quality assurance, reducing counterfeiting, efficient procurement procedures, data security, collaboration with SC members, and regulatory compliance.

Methodology

Sampling Procedure

The survey was conducted with managers based in Amman, the capital and largest city of Jordan. The survey responses were collected using a technique called judgmental sampling. Malhotra (2010) argues that even though non-probability sampling has its limitations, it can still provide valuable insights that can be used to estimate population parameters. In addition, the study employed judgmental sampling to ensure the selection of respondents with specialized knowledge and relevance to the research problem. While this method allowed for a great deal of fine detail to retrieve from people who were directly involved in or had expertise on the phenomenon under study, it does obviously put limits on how generalizable one’s results may be. The aim of a judgmental sample is to collect rich, contextual data, not build a statistically representative sample. Consequently, the results may not be representative of those in other populations and should be considered within the context of the sampling population (Bougie & Sekaran, 2019).

Based on the research conducted by Hair et al. (2019), it is suggested that a sample size of 200 or more is ideal when using partial least square structural equation modeling. To collect survey data, participants were given a structured questionnaire. Data collection took place between August 2023 and January 2024. After receiving 316 responses, the data was carefully analyzed using appropriate statistical analysis methods.

It is worthwhile to mention that there are some methodological limitations of this study that should be addressed. To begin, biases pertaining to personal perceptions of respondents should not be ruled out as the research relies on self-reported data gathered via a structured questionnaire. Secondly, the cross-sectional nature of this study does not allow for causal inferences to be made about the relationship between the investigated variables. In order to address and minimize these limitations, a number of actions were taken in this study. We maintained the anonymity and confidentiality of respondents to minimize bias for self-reported data. Furthermore, recall bias was minimized through the rigorous design of the questionnaire and clear, neutral and non-ambiguous questions. These cross-sectional designs put limitations in interpreting the results as causative relationships; therefore, SEM was used to uncover such associations among constructs as it accounts for complex interrelationships between variables and simultaneously provides valid conclusions irrespective of the data being cross-sectional.

Measurement Items

The measurement items used in this study were taken from previous research studies, as indicated in Table 1. The SP was based on research conducted by Arora et al. (2020). The items related to the elements of sustainability, specifically environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and social sustainability, were sourced from Jum’a et al. (2024). The items about the adoption of BCT was obtained from research conducted by Wamba and Guthrie (2020). The initial section of the questionnaire included questions about demographic information. In the second section of the questionnaire, the scale questions were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale. In the third section of the questionnaire, participants were asked to rate the significance of BCT benefits on a scale ranging from 1 to 5.

Table 1.

Constructs and Measurement Items.

Variables	Statements of measurement items	Sources
SP	1. “Purchasing is included in the firm’s strategic planning process” 2. “The purchasing function has a good knowledge of the firm’s strategic goals” 3. “Purchasing performance is measured in terms of its contributions to the firm’s success” 4. “Purchasing professionals’ development focuses on elements of the competitive strategy” 5. “Purchasing’s focus is on longer term issues that involve risk and uncertainty” 6. “The purchasing function has a formally written long-range plan” 7. “Purchasing’s long range plan includes the kinds of materials or services to be purchased” 8. “Purchasing’s long range plan includes various types of relationships to be established with suppliers” 9. “Purchasing is considered to be a vital part of our corporate strategy” 10. “The chief purchasing officer has high visibility within top management” 11. “Top management emphasizes the purchasing function’s strategic role”	Arora et al. (2020)
Blockchain adoption	1. “My company invests resources in blockchain-enabled supply chain applications” 2. “Business activities in our company require the use of blockchain technologies” 3. “Functional areas in my company require the use of blockchain technologies”	Wamba and Guthrie (2020)
Environmental sustainability	1. “Minimized the emission of hazardous substances or waste” 2. “Minimized the consumption of energy” 3. “Minimized the consumption of direct or indirect usage of material” 4. “Minimized the consumption of hazardous materials” 5. “Improved its overall environmental situation” 6. “Improved compliance with environmental regulations and standards”	Jum’a et al. (2024)
Economic sustainability	1. “Increased the market share and growth rate” 2. “Increased growth in profit margin” 3. “Increased level of productivity” 4. “Increased growth in sales” 5. “Lower the cost of production or production cost per unit” 6. “Improved the overall customer satisfaction”	Jum’a et al. (2024)
Social sustainability	1. “Substantially improved the overall customer retention and loyalty” 2. “Substantially enhanced its green image” 3. “Constantly paid important concern on the health and safety of the society” 4. “Constantly paid important concern on the society wellbeing in all operation” 5. “Constantly paid important concern on how the society response toward the firm’s action”	Jum’a et al. (2024)

Characteristics of the Respondents

Table 2 provides a depiction of the demographic distribution observed among the respondents included in the survey. It is worth noting that a considerable proportion of participants are male, comprising 92.7%, whereas females account for 7.3%. Most respondents, accounting for 44.9%, belong to the age group of 31 to 40 years. Additionally, individuals over the age of 50 make up 9.8% of the sample. With regards to professional background, a notable percentage (42.4%) possess a range of 5 to 10 years of experience, closely trailed by individuals with less than 5 years (28.5%) and those with more than 10 years (29.1%). In relation to educational background, a considerable proportion of individuals possess a bachelor’s degree (81.3%), whereas those who have obtained a master’s degree or higher account for 15.8%. The sample is primarily composed of first line managers, accounting for 73.4% of the positions, followed by middle managers at 17.1% and top managers at 9.5%. The distribution of respondents according to the number of employees revealed that 19.9% were employed in organizations with fewer than 20 employees, 39.6% were employed in organizations with 20 to 100 employees, and 40.5% were employed in organizations with over 100 employees.

Table 2.

Demographic Profiles of the Respondents.

Category	Subcategory	Frequency (n)	Percent (%)
Gender	Male	293	92.7
Gender	Female	23	7.3
Age	21–30 years	91	28.8
	31–40 years	142	44.9
	41–50 years	52	16.5
	Above 50 years	31	9.8
Experience	Less than 5 years	90	28.5
	5-10 year	134	42.4
	More than 10 years	92	29.1
Education	Diploma degree	9	2.8
	Bachelor degree	257	81.3
	Master’s degree and above	50	15.8
Managerial level	First line managers	232	73.4
	Middle managers	54	17.1
	Top managers	30	9.5
No. of employees—Company size*	<20 employees—Small	128	40.5
	20–99 employees—Medium	125	39.6
	≥100 employees—Corporation	63	19.9

Source. Amman Chamber of Industry.

Findings and Discussion

Descriptive Analysis

Mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and standard error were all included in the descriptive analysis. According to the findings, economic sustainability generated the highest mean score with a value of 4.0633 and a standard deviation of 0.85802. Social sustainability, on the other hand, generated the lowest mean score with a mean of 3.8272 and a standard deviation of 0.93965. Table 3 shows the detailed results of descriptive statistics.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 316).

Constructs	Mean	Std. deviation	Skewness	Std. error	Kurtosis	Std. error
SP	3.8697	0.92394	−0.955	0.137	0.633	0.273
Blockchain adoption	3.8281	0.92676	−1.276	0.137	1.673	0.273
Environmental sustainability	3.9989	0.97671	−1.794	0.137	2.902	0.273
Economic sustainability	4.0633	0.85802	−2.147	0.137	4.554	0.273
Social sustainability	3.8272	0.93965	−1.391	0.137	1.538	0.273

Structural Equation Modeling

Both the structural model and the measurement model were utilized in the two-stage structural equation modeling approach. The study utilized the statistical tool SmartPLS version 4 and the Importance-Performance Map Analysis (IPMA; Ringle et al., 2015).

Data analysis was conducted using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) due to its ability to manage complex models with multiple constructs, particularly in the case of explanatory research design. Given the foregoing, PLS-SEM entertains both measurement and structural models at the same time very effectively. PLS-SEM was selected as the ideal method for our study considering the complex relationships between constructs proposed in our model. PLS-SEM helps in measuring both direct and indirect effects making it useful in understanding the latent mechanisms in data.

Measurement Model Analysis

During the analysis phase of the measurement model, convergence validity and reliability were established using different measures. These measures included average variance extracted (AVE), factor loading, construct reliability measured by Cronbach’s alpha, and composite reliability.

Based on the research conducted by Hair et al. (2019), it was discovered that all the Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values surpassed the recommended threshold of .70. The results showed strong convergent validity, with factor loading values of 0.70 and AVE values above 0.50 (Hair et al., 2019). The study successfully confirmed the convergence validity and reliability of the latent variables used as shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Construct Reliability and Validity.

Study variables	Statements	Factor loadings	Cronbach’s alpha	Composite reliability	AVE
SP	SP1	0.960	0.989	0.989	0.898
	SP2	0.963
	SP3	0.960
	SP4	0.953
	SP5	0.923
	SP6	0.960
	SP7	0.963
	SP8	0.944
	SP9	0.936
	SP10	0.911
	SP11	0.950
Blockchain adoption	BCA.1	0.972	0.964	0.964	0.933
	BCA.2	0.963
	BCA.3	0.962
Environmental sustainability	ENV.1	0.973	0.985	0.986	0.932
	ENV.2	0.958
	ENV.3	0.96
	ENV.4	0.969
	ENV.5	0.965
	ENV.6	0.968
Economic sustainability	ECO.1	0.919	0.967	0.968	0.858
	ECO.2	0.901
	ECO.3	0.922
	ECO.4	0.947
	ECO.5	0.942
	ECO.6	0.927
Social sustainability	SOC.1	0.939	0.961	0.964	0.865
	SOC.2	0.936
	SOC.3	0.906
	SOC.4	0.948
	SOC.5	0.920

The investigation of discriminant validity involved comparing the correlation coefficients of the constructs with the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) values.

Fornell and Larcker (1981) argue that to establish adequate discriminant validity, it is necessary for the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) to exceed the magnitude of the correlations. The results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity.

Constructs	1	2	3	4	5
ECO.SUS	0.612
ENV.SUS	0.756	0.696
SOC.SUS	0.602	0.688	0.663
SP	0.641	0.547	0.566	0.668
BCT	0.636	0.618	0.634	0.572	0.558

Structural Model Analysis

The structural model in SmartPLS was executed using the bootstrapping method, employing 5,000 sub-samples as shown in Figure 2. The r square values indicated the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable that could be accounted for by the model.

Figure 2.

Structural model diagram.

The study revealed that the model demonstrated the ability to explain approximately 46.2% of the variability observed in the economic performance, 59.5% of the variability observed in the environmental performance, and 50.1% of the variability observed in the social performance. According to Byrne (2013), it is recommended that the NFI should exceed 0.90, while the SRMR should be below 0.09. Based on the model fit criteria, the PLS analysis yielded the values SRMR (0.031) and NFI (0.94).

The results of the structural model included the path relationships, beta values, t statistics, and p values associated with each hypothesis as shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

SEM Results.

Hypotheses	Paths	Beta	T statistics	p Values	Results
H1	SP -> ECO.SUS	0.179	3.099	.002**	Supported
H2	SP -> ENV.SUS	0.092	2.101	.036*	Supported
H3	SP -> SOC.SUS	0.422	5.610	.000***	Supported
	Moderating effects
H4a	BCT adoption × SP -> ECO.SUS	0.223	5.530	.000***	Supported
H4b	BCT adoption × SP -> ENV.SUS	0.164	4.336	.000***	Supported
H4c	BCT adoption × SP -> SOC.SUS	0.137	3.471	.001***	Supported

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The findings demonstrated that SP had a statistically significant influence on environmental/economic/social sustainable performances at p < .05 and p < .001 respectively so hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 are supported. Moreover, the results of moderating effects showed that blockchain adoption significantly and positively moderated the relationship between SP and environmental/economic/social sustainability. Thereby, hypotheses H4a-H4c were supported.

Our study supports Hypothesis H1, showing that SP improves economic performance. This confirms prior studies on SP’s importance in organizational performance (Allal-Chérif et al., 2021; Jing et al., 2021; Rane & Thakker, 2020). The positive association in our analysis shows that smart procurement practices boost economic performance.

Moreover, we found that SP improves environmental performance, supporting Hypothesis H2. Sustainable procurement can improve environmental outcomes, as shown by previous studies (Changotra et al., 2024; S. A. R. Khan et al., 2022; Moshtari et al., 2021). The literature supports our findings that SP promotes environmentally responsible company operations.

Additionally, our analysis supports Hypothesis H3, showing that SP impacts social performance. This result aligns with previous research who claimed that procurement techniques have beneficial social consequences (Charles & Benson Ochieng, 2023; Kshetri, 2021; Zhang & Dong, 2020), and that SP can foster organizational social responsibility.

As for the results of the moderating impact of BCT. Our study supports Hypothesis H4a that BCT moderates SP and economic performance. This result aligns with the studies that examined how BCT might optimize SC processes and increase economic performance (Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020; Tiwari et al., 2020).

Furthermore, our study results confirmed Hypothesis H4b that BCT moderates SP and environmental performance. Supporting H4b is in line with previous studies on the role of BCT in promoting environmentally sustainable performance (Long et al., 2023; Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020).

Finally, our study supports Hypothesis H4c that BCT moderates SP and social performance. This outcome comes in line with prior studies that showed the role of BCT in improving social responsibility by assuring fair labor and transparent SCs and then the social performance of firms (Fernandes et al., 2023; Padilla-Rivera et al., 2020).

Importance–Performance Map Analysis (IPMA)

The IPMA is a valuable tool that enhances the conventional reporting of path coefficient estimates. As explained by Hauff et al. (2024), it incorporates an additional dimension that considers the average values of the latent variable scores. The IPMA aims to assess the impact of a predictive variable that is BCT benefits on a target construct that is the sustainability performance by comparing it to the average scores of their latent variables, which is an indicator of the performance level (Fakfare & Manosuthi, 2023).

According to Haverila et al. (2021), researchers can use IPMA to improve a particular target construct that is the sustainability performance by combining the analysis of importance and performance constructs. By applying this approach, variables can be prioritized at either the component- or indicator-level within the measurement model (Haverila et al., 2021).

In previous studies, researchers have employed various techniques to classify and rank indicators, including analyzing path coefficients and their levels of significance. However, it has been discovered that these techniques offer only a narrow viewpoint when it comes to prioritization and implications especially when compared to IPMA (Hauff et al., 2024). The results given by the IPMA suggest that it is important to prioritize specific attributes at the indicator level (Fakfare & Manosuthi, 2023).

Currently, IPMA has gained popularity as an analytical method among researchers in various domains such as SC management (Sternad Zabukovšek et al., 2022). IPMA can be considered when the research objective is to prioritize variables of a specific construct, but it has been infrequently employed to examine sustainability issues (Fakfare & Manosuthi, 2023). This study utilizes the IPMA framework, and the objective is to ascertain the primary benefits of BCT and determine the significance of these advantages in improving various aspects of sustainability performance. This study builds upon previous research that employed IPMA using PLS-SEM.

According to Martilla and James (1977), the four quadrants in importance-performance analysis are defined as follows:

Category A named “Concentrate here”—high importance, low performance: necessitates prompt attention for enhancement and represents significant vulnerabilities.

Category B named “Keep up with the good work”—high importance, high performance: signify prospects for attaining or sustaining a competitive advantage and are significant strengths.

Category C named “Low priority”—low importance, low performance: are minor weaknesses and do not require additional effort.

Category D named “Possible overkill”—low importance, high performance: suggest that allocating business resources to these attributes would be excessive and should be reallocated to other areas.

The analysis conducted an IPMA for each type of performance as shown in Figures 3 to 5.

Figure 3.

IMPA—Economic sustainability.

Figure 4.

IMPA—Environmental sustainability.

Figure 5.

IMPA—Social sustainability.

Table 7 outlines various blockchain benefits categorized into four groups: Category A (Concentrate here), Category B (Keep up with the good work), Category C (Low priority), and Category D (Possible overkill). The categorization provides a strategic perspective on prioritizing blockchain applications based on their potential impact in economic, social, and environmental performances.

Table 7.

Blockchain Benefits According to IPMA/Sustainability Performance.

No.	Blockchain benefit	Category A. Concentrate here	Category B. Keep up with the good work	Category C. Low priority	Category D. Possible overkill
1	Supply Chain Transparency & Traceability	Economic, Social	Environmental
2	Supplier Smart Contracts	Environmental	Economic, Social
3	Inventory Real-time Tracking			Economic, Social	Environmental
4	Quality Assurance (Permanent Records)	Environmental	Economic		Social
5	Reducing Counterfeiting (Authentication)	Environmental	Economic, Social
6	Efficient Procurement Procedures (Information Sharing and Reduced Bureaucracy)	Environmental	Economic		Social
7	Data Security (cryptographic techniques)		Social		Environmental, Economic
8	Collaboration with SC Members (Secure Data Sharing)	Economic		Social	Environmental
9	Regulatory Compliance (Easy Auditable Records)		Social	Environmental	Economic

As for the SC transparency & traceability (benefit 1), minor economic and social weaknesses (A) indicate room for improvement in addressing their concerns. This blockchain benefit is a major strength (B) that needs immediate attention for sustained improvement on the environmental front. The environmental impact is significant, making continued improvement essential.

As for supplier smart contracts (benefit 2), it is a major strength (B) for economic and social considerations and requires ongoing optimization. Supplier smart contracts are major strengths (B) economically and socially, indicating that efforts should be maintained and improved to maintain a competitive advantage in these dimensions. While it is a weakness in regard to the environmental performance which requires immediate improvement.

Regarding the inventory in real-time tracking (benefit 3), it is economically and socially are rated as low priority (C), indicating that current efforts may be sufficient. Real-time inventory tracking is a minor weakness (D) for environmental performance, meaning no immediate effort is needed and the investment should be redirected to other benefits.

As for quality assurance and having permanent records (benefit 4), environmentally, maintaining quality through permanent records is a minor weakness (A) that requires sustained attention for improvement. It is a major economic strength (B) that needs constant consideration. Socially, it is marked as a possible overkill (D), requiring reassessment and resource reallocation.

Moreover, reducing counterfeiting through authentication (benefit 5), requires ongoing attention for more enhancements for environmental factors (A). The reduction of counterfeiting through authentication is a major strength (B) economically and socially, so efforts should be maintained and optimized for competitive advantage.

In addition, economic considerations are a major strength (B) that requires sustained focus for efficient procurement procedures (Benefit 6). Environmentally, efficient procurement procedures are a weakness (A) that needs constant improvement. From a social perspective, it may be overkill (D), requiring reassessment and resource reallocation.

Regarding data security and cryptographic techniques (benefit 7), it is considered a possible overkill (D) both environmentally and economically, indicating that they require reassessment and resource reallocation. Socially, it is a major strength (B), requiring sustained efforts to maximize its impact.

As for the collaboration with SC members and securing data sharing (benefit 8), secure data sharing is a low priority (D) for social performance, and current efforts may be sufficient, and reallocation of resources might be needed. Due to its economic weakness (A), it requires ongoing attention for more improvement and enhancement. Environmentally, it is low priority (C), meaning more effort may not be needed immediately.

Finally, regulatory compliance and easy auditable records (benefit 9), are a low priority (C) for environmental performance, suggesting existing efforts may be sufficient for regulatory compliance. Economically, it is a possible overkill (D), requiring reassessment and resource reallocation and since strength (B) for social performance, it needs constant optimization.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The study has both theoretical and practical implications for both SC managers and the literature of sustainability studies. This study presents a framework that elucidates the multifaceted impact of SP on economic, environmental, and social sustainability. This study introduces a novel perspective by demonstrating the moderating role of BCT, thereby enriching existing theoretical frameworks and providing a more nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between blockchain benefits and sustainable outcomes.

The results of this study contain a number of practical implications for firms seeking to develop the role of their purchase function strategically within companies. One of the key implications is to make sure that the purchasing function is built into the strategic planning of the organization. This entails establishing a clarity of purpose and performance measures for procurement professionals aimed at aligning those objectives with the organization’s ones. Placing buying requirements within this broader strategic context renders it more significant, and companies can better harness its power to shape organizational performance.

Another implication is that of investing in the professional growth of purchasing professionals. This development supports the purchasing function to make better decisions and adapt to an ever-changing business context, which ultimately enhances the competitive position of the organization.

Moreover, long-term purchasing planning is needed. Therefore, a documented long-term vision for the purchasing department is needed in order to sustain the continuous success. A plan of this nature should detail the desired materials or services to be obtained, as well as tactics on fostering relationships with different suppliers. Proactively looking at its suppliers not only allows the purchasing department to anticipate future needs and mitigate risks but also to ensure reliable sources of supply and hence plays a role in developing long term stability for the company, aiding further growth.

Another point, top management has an important part to play in increasing the strategic visibility of purchasing. The purchasing department thereby makes certain that the purchasing function is recognized at corporate level, and that the strategic importance of buying be appreciated by top management. It is the responsibility of top management as well to adequately back sourcing and reminded its strategic importance by aligning it with critical decision-making processes, in order to achieve this also through the support of other parts of the business.

In addition, the results of this study provide decision-makers with important implications in manufacturing companies to optimize strategic initiatives and resource allocation and minimize environmental disruptions and improve sustainable business practice through the IPMA analysis. To improve economic sustainability, BCT enhances financial transparency and efficiency, offering insights to help make better investment decisions and advising on financial strategies. Using the capabilities of BCT, businesses can simplify feed operations, decrease costs, and raise profits.

The benefits of BCT in terms of environmental sustainability are clear; it adds more to supply chain traceability and strengthens environmentally sustainable actions. It allows businesses to monitor and verify the environmental impact of their supply chains, ensuring compliance with sustainability standards. This is relevant on one front for organizations looking to lower their carbon emissions and improve the sustainable development of their production.

In the end, BCT is also strongly related to social sustainability. BCT supports trust and accountability amongst stakeholders by ensuring the reliability of smart contracts and improving supply chain integrity. This enhances the social sustainability and the relationships with suppliers, customers and other business partners, leading to long-term partnerships as well as shared social responsibility.

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Studies

Our study proposed a conceptual framework that aims to investigate the impact of SP on three different dimensions of sustainability performance. Additionally, we examined the moderating impact of BCT on these connections within the manufacturing industry. Furthermore, the present study examined the benefits of BCT, evaluating its impact on various aspects of sustainability performance using an importance-performance map analysis (IPMA). Moreover, this study was based on two fundamental theories namely DCT and RBV. This arises from their complementary viewpoints on organizational adaptation and resource optimization.

The study is quantitative in nature, and the data collected through a structured questionnaire from managers at different levels of management within manufacturing firms in Jordan resulted in 316 responses. The results of the study showed that SP has a significant and positive impact on all dimensions of sustainability performance. Additionally, the study revealed that BCT has a significant moderating impact on the relationship between SP and sustainability performance. Finally, the study identified BCT benefits importance that affect each type of sustainability performance along with their priorities.

This study contributed to the literature theoretically by enhancing existing theoretical frameworks with a deeper understanding of the intricate relationship between the benefits of blockchain and sustainable outcomes. Moreover, the study offered practical insights about SP’s role in sustainability performance and how companies may invest in BCT to enhance sustainability Consequently, companies should prioritize BCT investments in accordance with their sustainability objectives.

There were several limitations in our study which may be taken as an opportunity for future research. First, as the data collection was limited to manufacturing firms in Jordan, it might not necessarily be generalizable to other sectors or regions. This conceptual representation may need to be tested further within different industries and geographical settings in future studies. Second, the study had a cross-sectional design and therefore we cannot infer causality. Potential future longitudinal studies could expand further insights on the interrelation between SP, BCT and sustainability performance over time. Finally, additional research might examine other potential moderating or mediating variables such as organizational culture or technology readiness to better understand the process among SP, BCT and sustainability outcomes.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

“The authors thank German Jordanian University, Birzeit University, and Palestine Technical University – Kadoorie for their support in this research.”

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Luay Jum’a

Mohand Tuffaha

Ahmed Adnan Zaid

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

References

Acerbi

Taisch

(2020). A literature review on circular economy adoption in the manufacturing sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 123086.

Afum

Agyabeng-Mensah

Sun

Frimpong

Kusi

L. Y.

Acquah

I. S. K.

(2020). Exploring the link between green manufacturing, operational competitiveness, firm reputation and sustainable performance dimensions: A mediated approach. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(7), 1417–1438.

Allal-Chérif

Simón-Moya

Ballester

A. C. C.

(2021). Intelligent purchasing: How artificial intelligence can redefine the purchasing function. Journal of Business Research, 124, 69–76.

Althabatah

Yaqot

Menezes

Kerbache

(2023). Transformative procurement trends: Integrating Industry 4.0 technologies for enhanced procurement processes. Logistics, 7(3), 63.

Arora

A. S.

Sivakumar

Burke

(2020). Strategic sustainable purchasing, environmental collaboration, and organizational sustainability performance: The moderating role of supply base size. Supply Chain Management, 25(6), 709–728.

Aslam

Saleem

Khan

Kim

(2022). Blockchain technology for oil and gas: Implications and adoption framework using agile and lean supply chains. Processes, 10(12), 2687.

Babu

E. S.

Kavati

Nayak

S. R.

Ghosh

Al Numay

(2022). Secure and transparent pharmaceutical supply chain using permissioned blockchain network. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 27(12), 2839–2928.

Bakarich

K. M.

Castonguay

O’Brien

P. E

. (2020). The use of blockchains to enhance sustainability reporting and assurance. Accounting Perspectives, 19(4), 389–412.

Balsalobre-Lorente

Sinha

Driha

O. M.

Mubarik

M. S.

(2021). Assessing the impacts of ageing and natural resource extraction on carbon emissions: A proposed policy framework for European economies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 296, 126470.

10.

Barros

M. V.

Salvador

do Prado

G. F.

de Francisco

A. C.

Piekarski

C. M.

(2021). Circular economy as a driver to sustainable businesses. Cleaner Environmental Systems, 2, 100006.

11.

Bottoni

Gessa

Massa

Pareschi

Selim

Arcuri

(2020). Intelligent smart contracts for innovative supply chain management. Frontiers in Blockchain, 3, 52.

12.

Bougie

Sekaran

(Eds.). (2019). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (8th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

13.

Brun

Karaosman

Barresi

(2020). Supply chain collaboration for transparency. Sustainability, 12(11), 4429.

14.

Byrne

B. M.

(Ed.). (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.

15.

Centobelli

Cerchione

Vecchio

P. D.

Oropallo

Secundo

(2022). Blockchain technology for bridging trust, traceability and transparency in circular supply chain. Information Management, 59(7), 103508.

16.

Changotra

Rajput

Liu

Murray

Q. S.

(2024). Occurrence, fate, and potential impacts of wood preservatives in the environment: Challenges and environmentally friendly solutions. Chemosphere, 352, 141291.

17.

Charles

Benson Ochieng

(2023). Strategic outsourcing and firm performance: A review of literature. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Research, 1(1), 20–29.

18.

Chen

Song

Gao

(2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management, 345, 118829.

19.

Chen

Kumara

E. K.

Sivakumar

(2021). Investigation of finance industry on risk awareness model and digital economic growth. Annals of Operations Research, 326(S1), 15–22.

20.

Chin

Wang

Yang

Duan

Chen

(2021). The moderating effect of managerial discretion on blockchain technology and the firms’ innovation quality: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. International Journal of Production Economics, 240, 108219.

21.

Choi

Chung

C. Y.

Seyha

Young

(2020). Factors affecting organizations’ resistance to the adoption of blockchain technology in supply networks. Sustainability, 12(21), 8882.

22.

Chukwu

Adu-Baah

Niaz

Nwagwu

Chukwu

M. U.

(2023). Navigating ethical supply chains: The intersection of diplomatic management and theological ethics. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Sciences and Arts, 2(1), 127–139.

23.

Colorado

H. A.

Velásquez

E. I. G.

Monteiro

S. N.

(2020). Sustainability of additive manufacturing: The circular economy of materials and environmental perspectives. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, 9(4), 8221–8234.

24.

Datta

Jauhar

S. K.

Paul

S. K.

(2023). Leveraging blockchain to improve nutraceutical supply chain resilience under post-pandemic disruptions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 183, 109475.

25.

Denicolai

Zucchella

Magnani

(2021). Internationalization, digitalization, and sustainability: Are SMEs ready? A survey on synergies and substituting effects among growth paths. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120650.

26.

Drummer

Neumann

(2020). Is code law? Current legal and technical adoption issues and remedies for blockchain-enabled smart contracts. Journal of Information Technology, 35(4), 337–360.

27.

Xie

(2021). Paradoxes of artificial intelligence in consumer markets: Ethical challenges and opportunities. Journal of Business Research, 129, 961–974.

28.

Dwivedi

S. K.

Amin

Vollala

(2020). Blockchain based secured information sharing protocol in supply chain management system with key distribution mechanism. Journal of Information Security and Applications, 54, 102554.

29.

Elalaoui Elabdallaoui

Elfazziki

Sadgal

. (2021, June 21–23). A blockchain-based platform for the e-procurement management in the public sector [Conference session]. Model and Data Engineering: 10th International Conference, MEDI2021, Proceedings 10, Tallinn, Estonia (pp. 213–223). Springer International Publishing.

30.

Fakfare

Manosuthi

(2023). Examining the influential components of tourists' intention to use travel apps: The importance–performance map analysis. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights, 6(3), 1144–1168.

31.

Fernandes

Kuzey

Uyar

Karaman

A. S.

(2023). Board structure policy, board diversity and social sustainability in the logistics and transportation sector. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 53(1), 62–92.

32.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

33.

Gohil

Thakker

S. V.

(2021). Blockchain-integrated technologies for solving supply chain challenges. Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications, 3(2), 78–97.

34.

Gray

J. V.

Helper

Osborn

(2020). Value first, cost later: Total value contribution as a new approach to sourcing decisions. Journal of Operations Management, 66(6), 735–750.

35.

Greer

S. L.

Klasa

VAN Ginneken

(2020). Power and purchasing: why strategic purchasing fails. Milbank Quarterly, 98(3), 975–1020.

36.

Gunasekara

H. G.

Sridarran

Rajaratnam

(2022). Effective use of blockchain technology for facilities management procurement process. Journal of Facilities Management, 20(3), 452–468.

37.

Hair

J. E.

Jr Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(Eds.). (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.

38.

Hallikas

Immonen

Brax

(2021). Digitalizing procurement: The impact of data analytics on supply chain performance. Supply Chain Management, 26(5), 629–646.

39.

Hauff

Richter

N. F.

Sarstedt

Ringle

C. M.

(2024). Importance and performance in PLS-SEM and NCA: Introducing the combined importance-performance map analysis (cIPMA). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 78, 103723.

40.

Haverila

K. C.

Twyford

J. C.

(2021). Critical variables and constructs in the context of project management: Importance-performance analysis. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 14(4), 836–864.

41.

Hockenberry

(2021). Redirected entanglements in the digital supply chain. Cultural Studies, 35(4-5), 641–662.

42.

Iftekhar

Cui

Hassan

Afzal

(2020). Application of blockchain and Internet of Things to ensure tamper-proof data availability for food safety. Journal of Food Quality, 2020, 1–14.

43.

Ijaz Baig

Yadegaridehkordi

. (2024). Exploring moderating role of blockchain adoption on economic and environmental sustainability of organizations: A SEM-fsQCA technique. Sustainable Development, 32(4), 3824–3839.

44.

Jing

Hou

Yan

Z. P.

Han

(2021). Investigating the effect of value stream mapping on procurement effectiveness: A case study. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 32(4), 935–946.

45.

Jum’a

Bushnaq

. (2024). Investigating the role of flexibility as a moderator between supply chain integration and firm performance: The case of manufacturing sector. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 21(2), 203–227.

46.

Jum’a

(2023). The role of blockchain-enabled supply chain applications in improving supply chain performance: The case of Jordanian manufacturing sector. Management Research Review, 46(10), 1315–1333.

47.

Jum’a

Alkalha

Alaraj

(2024). Towards environmental sustainability: The nexus between green supply chain management, total quality management, and environmental management practices. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 41(5), 1209–1234.

48.

Jum’a

Zimon

Ikram

(2021). A relationship between supply chain practices, environmental sustainability and financial performance: Evidence from manufacturing companies in Jordan. Sustainability, 13(4), 2152.

49.

Jum’a

Zimon

Ikram

Madzík

(2022). Towards a sustainability paradigm; the nexus between lean green practices, sustainability-oriented innovation and Triple Bottom Line. International Journal of Production Economics, 245, 108393.

50.

Jum’a

Zimon

Madzik

(2024). Impact of big data technological and personal capabilities on sustainable performance on Jordanian manufacturing companies: The mediating role of innovation. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 37(2), 329–354.

51.

Kamble

S. S.

Gunasekaran

Kumar

Belhadi

Foropon

(2021). A machine learning based approach for predicting blockchain adoption in supply chain. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120465.

52.

Kamble

S. S.

Gunasekaran

Subramanian

Ghadge

Belhadi

Venkatesh

(2023). Blockchain technology’s impact on supply chain integration and sustainable supply chain performance: Evidence from the automotive industry. Annals of Operations Research, 327(1), 575–600.

53.

Kaushik

Jain

(2021, November). An approach for improving transparency and traceability of industrial supply chain with block chain technology [Conference session]. 2021 6th International Conference on Innovative Technology in Intelligent System and Industrial Applications (CITISIA) (pp. 1–6). IEEE.

54.

Khan

I. S.

Ahmad

M. O.

Majava

(2021). Industry 4.0 and sustainable development: A systematic mapping of triple bottom line, circular economy and sustainable business models perspectives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 297, 126655.

55.

Khan

S. A. R.

Godil

D. I.

Jabbour

C. J. C.

Shujaat

Razzaq

(2021). Green data analytics, blockchain technology for sustainable development, and sustainable supply chain practices: Evidence from small and medium enterprises. Annals of Operations Research, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-021-04275-x

56.

Khan

S. A. R.

Farooq

(2023). Green capabilities, green purchasing, and triple bottom line performance: Leading toward environmental sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(4), 2022–2034.

57.

Khan

S. A. R.

Umar

Tanveer

(2022). Green capabilities and green purchasing practices: A strategy striving towards sustainable operations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(4), 1719–1729.

58.

Khan

S. A. R.

Zia-ul-haq

H. M.

Umar

(2021). Digital technology and circular economy practices: An strategy to improve organizational performance. Business Strategy and Development, 4(4), 482–490.

59.

Kshetri

(2021). Blockchain and sustainable supply chain management in developing countries. International Journal of Information Management, 60, 102376.

60.

Kumar

Gupta

S. K.

Wang

H. C.

Kumari

C. S.

Korlam

S. S. V. P

. (2023). From efficiency to sustainability: Exploring the potential of 6G for a greener future. Sustainability, 15(23), 16387.

61.

Kunkel

Matthess

Xue

Beier

(2022). Industry 4.0 in sustainable supply chain collaboration: Insights from an interview study with international buying firms and Chinese suppliers in the electronics industry. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 182, 106274.

62.

Lashitew

A. A.

(2021). Corporate uptake of the Sustainable Development Goals: Mere greenwashing or an advent of institutional change? Journal of International Business Policy, 4(1), 184–200.

63.

Leng

Ruan

Jiang

Liu

Zhou

Liu

(2020). Blockchain-empowered sustainable manufacturing and product lifecycle management in industry 4.0: A survey. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 132, 110112.

64.

Lenuwat

Boon-itt

(2022). Information technology management and service performance management capabilities: An empirical study of the service supply chain management process. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 19(1), 55–77.

65.

T. T.

(2023). Corporate social responsibility and smes' performance: mediating role of corporate image, corporate reputation and customer loyalty. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(10), 4565–4590.

66.

Liu

Barenji

A. V.

Montreuil

Huang

G. Q.

(2021). Blockchain-based smart tracking and tracing platform for drug supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 161, 107669.

67.

Dai

Cui

(2020). The impact of digital technologies on economic and environmental performance in the context of industry 4.0: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Production Economics, 229, 107777.

68.

Z. P.

Ceong

H. T.

Lee

S. J.

(2021). The effect of blockchain operation capabilities on competitive performance in supply chain management. Sustainability, 13(21), 12078.

69.

Long

Feng

Fan

Liu

(2023). Adopting blockchain technology to enhance green supply chain integration: The moderating role of organizational culture. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(6), 3326–3343.

70.

Luo

(2022). A general framework of digitization risks in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(2), 344–361.

71.

Malhotra

N. K.

(2010). Marketing research: An applied orientation. 6th ed. Prentice Hall.

72.

Martilla

J. A.

James

J. C.

(1977). Importance-performance analysis. Journal of Marketing, 41(1), 77–79.

73.

Mhatre

Kashid

Jain

Chavan

(2023). BCPIS: Blockchain-based counterfeit product identification system. Journal of Applied Security Research, 18(4), 1–765.

74.

Mondol

E. P.

(2021). The impact of block chain and smart inventory system on supply chain performance at retail industry. International Journal of Computations, Information and Manufacturing, 1(1), 56–76.

75.

Moshtari

Altay

Heikkilä

Gonçalves

(2021). Procurement in humanitarian organizations: Body of knowledge and practitioner's challenges. International Journal of Production Economics, 233, 108017.

76.

Nekmahmud

Fekete-Farkas

(2020). Why not green marketing? Determinates of consumers’ intention to green purchase decision in a new developing nation. Sustainability, 12(19), 7880.

77.

Omar

I. A.

Jayaraman

Debe

M. S.

Salah

Yaqoob

Omar

(2021). Automating procurement contracts in the healthcare supply chain using blockchain smart contracts. IEEE Access, 9, 37397–37409.

78.

Özkan

Azizi

Haass

(2021). Leveraging smart contract in project procurement through DLT to gain sustainable competitive advantages. Sustainability, 13(23), 13380.

79.

Padilla-Rivera

Russo-Garrido

Merveille

(2020). Addressing the social aspects of a circular economy: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 12(19), 7912.

80.

Patrucco

A. S.

Luzzini

Krause

Moretto

A. M.

(2023). What is the right purchasing strategy for your company? The fit between strategic intent, strategic purchasing and perceived environmental uncertainty. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 53(9), 1043–1072.

81.

Raja Santhi

Muthuswamy

. (2022). Influence of blockchain technology in manufacturing supply chain and logistics. Logistics, 6(1), 15.

82.

Rane

S. B.

Thakker

S. V.

(2020). Green procurement process model based on blockchain–IoT integrated architecture for a sustainable business. Management of Environmental Quality An International Journal, 31(3), 741–763.

83.

Rauniyar

Gupta

Modgil

Lopes de Sousa Jabbour

A. B.

(2023). Risk management of supply chains in the digital transformation era: Contribution and challenges of blockchain technology. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 123(1), 253–277.

84.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J. M.

(2015). SmartPLS 3 (Version 3) [Computer Software]. SmartPLS GmbH. http://www.smartpls.com

85.

Schütz

Kässer

Blome

Foerstl

(2020). How to achieve cost savings and strategic performance in purchasing simultaneously: A knowledge-based view. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 26(2), 100534.

86.

Seyedghorban

Samson

Tahernejad

(2020). Digitalization opportunities for the procurement function: Pathways to maturity. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 40(11), 1685–1693.

87.

Shafiq

Ahmed

M. U.

Mahmoodi

(2020). Impact of supply chain analytics and customer pressure for ethical conduct on socially responsible practices and performance: An exploratory study. International Journal of Production Economics, 225, 107571.

88.

Singh

P. K.

Chan

S. W.

(2022). The impact of electronic procurement adoption on green procurement towards sustainable supply chain performance-evidence from Malaysian ISO organizations. Journal of Open Innovation Technology Market and Complexity, 8(2), 61.

89.

Sternad Zabukovšek

Bobek

Zabukovšek

Kalinić

Tominc

. (2022). Enhancing PLS-SEM-enabled research with ANN and IPMA: Research study of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems’ acceptance based on the technology acceptance model (TAM). Mathematics, 10(9), 1379.

90.

Sunny

Undralla

Madhusudanan Pillai

(2020). Supply chain transparency through blockchain-based traceability: An overview with demonstration. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 150, 106895.

91.

Sun

Shahzad

Razzaq

(2022). Sustainable organizational performance through blockchain technology adoption and knowledge management in China. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 7(4), 100247.

92.

Susanto

Sawitri

N. N.

Ali

Rony

Z. T.

(2023). Employee Performance and talent management impact increasing construction company productivity. International Journal of Psychology and Health Science, 1(4), 144–152.

93.

Taghipour

Khazaei

Azar

Rajabzadeh Ghatari

Hajiaghaei-Keshteli

Ramezani

(2022). Creating shared value and strategic corporate social responsibility through outsourcing within supply chain management. Sustainability, 14(4), 1940.

94.

Taloba

A. I.

Elhadad

El-Aziz

R. M. A.

Shahin

O. R.

(2021). Prediction of data threats over web medium using advanced blockchain based information security with crypto strategies. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03109-9.

95.

Tarigan

Z. J. H.

Siagian

(2021). The effects of strategic planning, purchasing strategy and strategic partnership on operational performance. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 9(2), 363–372.

96.

Tasnim

(2020). Disruption in global Food Supply Chain (FSCs) due to Covid-19 pandemic and impact of digitalization through block chain technology in FSCs management. Open Journal of Business and Management, 12(17), 73–84.

97.

Tezel

Papadonikolaki

Yitmen

Hilletofth

(2020). Preparing construction supply chains for blockchain technology: An investigation of its potential and future directions. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 7(4), 547–563.

98.

Tiwari

Sadeghi

J. K.

Eseonu

(2020). A sustainable lean production framework with a case implementation: Practice-based view theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 123078.

99.

Ullah

Narain

(2021). Achieving mass customization capability: The roles of flexible manufacturing competence and workforce management practices. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 18(2), 273–296.

100.

Varriale

Cammarano

Michelino

Caputo

(2021). New organizational changes with blockchain: A focus on the supply chain. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(2), 420–438.

101.

Vegesna

V. V.

(2022). Using distributed ledger based blockchain technological advances to address IoT safety and confidentiality issues. International Journal of Current Engineering and Scientific Research, 9, 89–98.

102.

Viale

Vacher

Bessouat

(2022). Eco-innovation in the upstream supply chain: Re-thinking the involvement of purchasing managers. Supply Chain Management, 27(2), 250–264.

103.

Wamba

Guthrie

(2020). The impact of blockchain adoption on competitive performance: the mediating role of process and relational innovation. Logistique and Management, 28(1), 88–96.

104.

Wamba

S. F.

Queiroz

M. M.

Trinchera

(2020). Dynamics between blockchain adoption determinants and supply chain performance: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Production Economics, 229, 107886.

105.

Wang

Abareshi

(2020). Blockchain technology and its role in enhancing supply chain integration capability and reducing carbon emission: A conceptual framework. Sustainability, 12(24), 10550.

106.

Wehrle

Birkel

von der Gracht

H. A.

Hartmann

(2022). The impact of digitalization on the future of the PSM function managing purchasing and innovation in new product development–Evidence from a Delphi study. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 28(2), 100732.

107.

Wieland

(2021). Dancing the supply chain: Toward transformative supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 57(1), 58–73.

108.

Yadav

A. S.

Singh

Kushwaha

D. S.

(2022). A scalable trust based consensus mechanism for secure and tamper free property transaction mechanism using DLT. International Journal of Systems Assurance Engineering and Management, 13(2), 735–751.

109.

Yin

Ran

(2021). Theoretical exploration of supply chain viability utilizing blockchain technology. Sustainability, 13(15), 8231.

110.

Yosef

F. A.

Jum’a

Alatoom

(2023). Identifying and categorizing sustainable supply chain practices based on triple bottom line dimensions: Evaluation of practice implementation in the cement industry. Sustainability, 15(9), 7323.

111.

Yuan

Luo

Liu

M. J.

(2022). Understanding organizational resilience in a platform-based sharing business: The role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Research, 141, 85–99.

112.

Zhang

Dong

(2020). Why do consumers make green purchase decisions? Insights from a systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6607.

113.

Zils

Howard

Hopkinson

(2023). Circular economy implementation in operations & supply chain management: Building a pathway to business transformation. Production Planning and Control, 36(4), 1–20.

114.

Zimon

Tyan

Sroufe

(2020). Drivers of sustainable supply chain management: Practices to alignment with un sustainable development goals. International Journal for Quality Research, 14, 219–236.

Growing Sustainable Performance Through Strategic Purchasing and Blockchain Technology: The Case of Manufacturing Sector

Abstract

Plain language summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

The Relationship Between SP and BCT

SP and Economic Sustainability

SP and Environmental Sustainability

SP and Social Sustainability

Moderating Effect of Blockchain Adoption Between SP and Sustainable Performance of Firms

Blockchain Benefits for Manufacturing Firms

Methodology

Sampling Procedure

Measurement Items

Characteristics of the Respondents

Findings and Discussion

Descriptive Analysis

Structural Equation Modeling

Measurement Model Analysis

Structural Model Analysis

Importance–Performance Map Analysis (IPMA)

Theoretical and Practical Implications

Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Studies

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

Data Availability Statement

References