Content uploaded by Estrela Ferreira Cruz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Estrela Ferreira Cruz on May 24, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Blockchain-based Traceability Platforms as a Tool for Sustainability
Ant´
onio Miguel Rosado da Cruz1,2 a and Estrela Ferreira Cruz1,2 b
1Instituto Polit´
ecnico de Viana do Castelo, 4900-347, Viana do Castelo, Portugal
2Centro ALGORITMI, Escola de Engenharia, Universidade do Minho, Guimar˜
aes, Portugal
{miguel.cruz, estrela.cruz}@estg.ipvc.pt
Keywords: Social sustainability, Environmental sustainability, Supply-chain traceability, Blockchain.
Abstract: Among the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social and economic), modern society begins to
give greater attention to the environmental and social ones at the expense of the economic. Consumers are
beginning to be prepared to pay more for products that are socially and environmentally responsible, but, for
taking that decision, they need to be sure that the products they choose are really socially and environmentally
friendly. For that, it is necessary to have transparency about what happens in each stage of the products’
supply chain and this information must be available to the consumer. Thus, it is necessary to know the entire
supply chain, from the creation of raw materials to the arrival of the final products at the consumer. Storing
information (where, who, how, when, etc.) on each of the steps of the supply chain is essential, enabling the
traceability of products to become more transparent and even allowing them to be withdrawn from the market
if necessary, for health reasons (for example: use of a toxic paint in a clothes’ factory). This position paper
proposes the use of the blockchain technology to implement traceability in the supply chain.
1 INTRODUCTION
Sustainability can be defined as the way “natural
systems function, remain diverse and produce every-
thing they need for the ecology to remain in balance”
(James, 2015; Krajn´
ıkov´
a et al., 2019). A sustain-
able development is formed by a set of strategies and
ideas ecologically correct, economically viable, so-
cially just in order to preserve that balance.
Modern society is mainly driven by businesses
and technology. Businesses provide people with jobs,
goods and services, and it is the governments’ job to
define the rules by which those businesses are bound.
Despite this, some businesses work while neglecting
social or environmental issues. We can find several
examples of this neglect in areas such as:
•Fashion - in recent years, and with the appear-
ance of the so-called fast fashion, the fashion in-
dustry has become one of the most polluting in-
dustries. This industry encourages the (unnec-
essary) consumption, increases the carbon foot-
print (more raw materials, more energy spent on
production, more production and transport from
far away sites) and greater waste (more material
ahttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-1160
bhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6426-9939
to recycle or to be treated as waste), many times
with no social neither environmental responsibil-
ity. Most of the fashion brands have moved their
production to developing countries, without wor-
rying about who works in those factories, or under
what conditions. The fashion industry is a source
of exploitation for millions (Sanders et al., 2019),
sometimes using forced and child labor.
•Agriculture, forestry and fisheries - where re-
sources are over exploited, leading to the reduc-
tion of wood forests, desertification of arable land
and endangering some animal species;
•Mining and mineral exploration - the resources
needed to sustain our modern society are, many
times, extracted in developing countries with risks
of using underpaid workers or even forced or child
labor and, at the same time, damaging the environ-
ment modifying the landscape, most of the times
with a poor treatment of chemical residues and
contributing to water and soil pollution.
In developed countries, labor laws exist, prohibit-
ing forced and child labor and protecting workers
from being exploited. These countries also have en-
vironmental protection laws, which make possible to
protect the environment. However, a large part of the
industries transferred all or part of their production
to countries where these laws do not exist (or are not
enforced) and where labor is cheaper. In this way,
the non-exploitation of workers is not guaranteed, nor
the protection of the environment, and in addition, the
products are transported over a much larger number
of kilometers, increasing their carbon footprint.
Some brands (or companies), operating in devel-
oped countries, are concerned with treating their em-
ployees fairly, protecting the environment and being
socially aware, but work with suppliers who do not
have the same concerns. If companies don’t know
who their suppliers are, then they can’t be totally sure
that the workers who make their products are not be-
ing exploited (Sanders et al., 2019).
Ideally, when we buy (or consume) a product we
should be able to know its constitution (raw materi-
als), its origins, if workers are not exploited in any
part of the supply chain, if companies involved in the
supply chain are environmentally friendly, etc. If con-
sumers cannot find information about products ‘envi-
ronmental impact and ethically and socially correct-
ness, they cannot include this information in their de-
cisions when they need to decide which product to
buy. For that, it is necessary to know the entire supply
chain of a product, meaning knowing its origins (since
raw materials), how, when, where and in what con-
ditions the product is produced, transformed, trans-
ported and stored.
At the same time, we have sustainable tradi-
tional regional products with Protected Designation
of Origin (PDO) or Protected Geographical Indication
(PGI) whose origins must be assured to avoid forg-
eries (Cruz and da Cruz, 2019).
This position paper defends that, in the name of
sustainability, it is mandatory to know each step in
the supply chain of the products, allowing traceability
as a way to reinforcing transparency.
According to Ciccio et al. (2018) “traceability of
information plays a pivotal role particularly in those
supply chains where multiple parties are involved and
rigorous criteria must be fulfilled to lead to a success-
ful outcome” (Di Ciccio et al., 2018).
In the context of a supply chain, blockchain tech-
nology is being seen as one of the technologies that
better fits traceability needs (Di Ciccio et al., 2018).
The blockchain is a distributed technology that allows
for registering and sharing information between those
companies and the final consumers.
This position paper defends that, traceability plat-
forms are the key for tracing a set of social and en-
vironmental parameters, promoting sustainability im-
provement. And, public blockchains are the techno-
logical answer for registering this traceability infor-
mation, enabling public scrutiny and helping backing
consumers choices, by allowing them to take informed
decisions on the selection of products with lower car-
bon footprint or products which help improving peo-
ple’s lives, either because they were produced by eth-
ical and fair paying businesses or because they are
based on better long-lasting products with lower car-
bon emissions.
The remainder of the paper is structured as fol-
lows: The next section presents assertions and objec-
tions on the above stated position. Section 3 sum-
marizes the best presented arguments and backs and
further explains the position defended, despite the
strength of some objections. And, after restating the
defended position, concludes the paper.
2 ASSERTIONS AND
OBJECTIONS ON THE STATED
POSITION
In this section we present some arguments for and
against the above stated position.
2.1 On Balancing the 3 Dimensions of
Sustainability
The 1987 report of the World Commission on En-
vironment and Development (WCED), aka Brundt-
land Commission report, defines sustainable devel-
opment as the “development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” (Scamans, 2016;
Brundtland, 1987). The report brought into attention
the need of working towards economic development
without exhausting natural resources or harming the
environment.
Although, at the beginning of its emergence, “sus-
tainable development has been interpreted as an eco-
logical vision” ( ˚
Ahman, 2013), in recent years it has
become a multifocal agenda involving social, envi-
ronmental and economic aspects, pondering and har-
monizing their conflicts (Rasouli and Kumarasuriyar,
2016).
Sustainable development is then based on three
dimensions: social, environmental and economical
(Adams, 2006; Scamans, 2016) (see Fig. 1).
Social sustainability aims at providing future gen-
erations the same or greater access to healthcare, nu-
trition, shelter, and education, in addition to cultural
resources then today’s generation. It is about allowing
the society to function continually at a good level of
social wellbeing. Issues as war, poverty, injustice, and
low level of education are signs of a socially unsta-
ble system (Adams, 2006; Basiago, 1999; McKenzie,
2004; Scamans, 2016).
Environmental sustainability aims at supporting a
defined level of environmental quality and keeping
the natural resource capital intact. For this, the con-
sumption of renewable resources should not surpass
the level at which they are renewed. Also, the pro-
duction and management of pollution and waste must
be kept at a sustainable level (Adams, 2006; Basiago,
1999; McKenzie, 2004; Scamans, 2016).
Economic sustainability is about ensuring a com-
pany’s financial performance, whilst managing its in-
tangible assets, considering its influence on the econ-
omy, and how it deals with social and environmental
aspects (Adams, 2006; Scamans, 2016). Economic
sustainability occurs when development is financially
feasible, whilst socially and environmentally sustain-
able (Gilbert et al., 1996; Scamans, 2016).
Figure 1: Sustainability overlapping circles (Adapted from
(Adams, 2006; McKenzie, 2004; Scamans, 2016)).
2.2 Traceability Platforms as Promoters
of Sustainability
Louis Roy defines Traceability as the capacity to ver-
ify the history, location or status of an item by means
of documented identification (Roy, 2019). Putting to-
gether the ability to uniquely identifying a product or
product lot, by assigning unique identifiers to them,
with traceability, enables an end-to-end visibility over
supply chains. Traceability allows to assess the effi-
ciency of the entire supply chain process with data
management and analytics, right up to the point of
sale, the consumer, and beyond (Roy, 2019). But,
most importantly, traceability allows to track infor-
mation about social and environmental sustainability,
which consumers can use to inform better decisions
(Roy, 2019).
Traceability can be adapted to any industry. Some
sectors, such as the pharmaceutical industry, are even
subject to legislation requiring it (Roy, 2019).
Within all economy sectors, traceability systems
may be applied to create a more sustainable world.
2.2.1 Traceability and Sustainability in the
Fashion Industry
The Fashion industry is responsible for about 10% of
humanity’s carbon emissions (Sanders et al., 2019).
That’s more than all international flights and maritime
shipping combined (McFall-Johnsen, 2019).
The study presented in (Sanders et al., 2019) con-
cludes that, globally, humans are consuming 400%
more new pieces of clothing per year, than we con-
sumed two decades ago. Additionally, about 85% of
all textiles go to waste each year.
The fashion industry is also the second-largest
consumer of water worldwide. Fashion industry also
causes water-pollution problems, being responsible
for 20% of all industrial water pollution worldwide
(McFall-Johnsen, 2019). Textile dyeing is, for in-
stance, the world’s second-largest polluter of water.
Globally, only 12% of companies are monitoring the
wastewater from all wet-processing facilities to en-
sure it is not environmentally hazardous (Sanders
et al., 2019).
Additionally, fast fashion aggravates these prob-
lems by adopting a business model that uses cheap
materials, and many times underpaid labor, to yield
clothing collections at low cost. These creates a pat-
tern where products are manufactured, consumed and
disposed of - literally - fast.
According to McKinsey and Co., consumers are
purchasing 60% more cloths, but keeping each gar-
ment for half as long, when comparing data from
years 2014 and 2000 (McFall-Johnsen, 2019). The
explanation varies between clothes being worn or de-
formed sooner, due to the use of weak materials, or
just because they are out of fashion. Fast fashion
is also based on poor working conditions, child la-
bor and environmental abuse (McFall-Johnsen, 2019).
And, being based on offshoring work to developing
countries, it has created longer supply chains, increas-
ing its carbon footprint. (Scamans, 2016)
Traceability platforms for the fashion industry
have been developed for disparate reasons, ranging
from tracking back products’ process paths or mon-
itoring the quality level from the point of sale back
to the production of raw materials (Gobbi and Massa,
2016; Shen and Li, 2015; Choi and Luo, 2019; Ku-
mar et al., 2017) to monitoring supply chains’ carbon
emissions and environmental sustainability (Fu et al.,
2018; Caniato et al., 2012).
Traceability systems are thus seen as an efficient
tool for supporting sustainable supply chain manage-
ment in the Fashion industry.
2.2.2 Traceability and Sustainability in the
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Authorities, such as the European Union are propos-
ing directives requiring the registering of the origin
of certain products improving product traceability and
faster recalls when necessary.
Traceability systems can effectively trace food
quality, help maintain the population of wild fish at
sea and manage livestock production in farms and
aquaculture explorations, keep track of usage of wa-
ter, pesticides and the land itself, and reduce food
safety issues. Several examples exist of traceability
systems in this sector. In (Donnelly and PetterOlsen,
2012; da Cruz et al., 2019; Cruz et al., 2019) reports
are made about traceability platforms for registering
and retrieving information about fish capture, both in
the wild and in aquaculture explorations, and the sub-
sequent transport, processing and sales activities.
All the supply chain events that change the state
of the captured fish lots, from its capture (or breed-
ing) until a final sale of the fish or a derived product,
are recorded in a traceability platform along the sup-
ply chain, for providing consumers with better prod-
uct information about the fish they purchase.
Currently about half of the humans-consumed fish
comes from aquaculture farms. As it happens with
other food products, the traceability of fish or fish-
ery products is very important, either to inform the
consumer about the path of the fish through the value
chain or to recall fish lots in case of threats to the pub-
lic health (da Cruz et al., 2019; Cruz et al., 2019).
Incidents of food scares, adulteration, fraudulence
and foodborne disease outbreaks have put the con-
sumer more alert about the food they consume (Mon-
tet and Ray, 2018). These incidents have lead some
Food Supply Chain partners to implement a traceabil-
ity system in their supply chains (Haleem et al., 2019)
to help increase the consumer confidence.
In (Haleem et al., 2019) twelve drivers (major fac-
tors) playing a role in the successful implementation
of the traceability system in food supply chains are
identified. The most influential identified driver is the
“food safety and quality” (Haleem et al., 2019).
In (Cruz and da Cruz, 2019), integrated pattern
business-process and domain models for food product
lots traceability in the inter-organizational space in-
side a food value chain are proposed. A supply-chain
wide traceability system allows organizations to ex-
change information about the quality and location of
product lots, from their production and first sale until
the sale to the final customer.
The implementation of food traceability systems
in big markets, such as China, faces challenges due
to the scale, diversity, and complexity of food supply
chains. In (Duan et al., 2017) critical success factors
specific to these implementations are identified.
In (Xiaoshuan et al., 2010), four criteria are pro-
posed to analyze strengths and limitations of the oper-
ating mechanisms of traceability systems in agribusi-
ness. The paper concludes that an integrated mech-
anism is needed to implement traceability system in
agribusiness (Xiaoshuan et al., 2010).
In (Thakur et al., 2009), efforts are made to un-
derstand and improve bulk grain traceability. Food
safety events, such as aflatoxin in grains, salmonella
in spinach and tomatoes, and melamine in feed and
food, combined with the slow identification of the
suspect products and with demand for high-quality
food and feed products have increased interest in
food traceability systems. Food safety and traceabil-
ity laws exist in several countries, but traceability is
important for several reasons other than just a legal
obligation (Thakur et al., 2009), including efficient re-
sponse to food safety threats, monitoring the chain of
events (production, transportation, sales, etc.), meet-
ing regulatory compliance, analyzing logistics costs
and its carbon footprint, among other reasons.
In (Zhao, 2015) a discussion of the role of trace-
ability systems in improving food safety is put into
place, and legislations and regulatory practices be-
tween EU and China are analyzed.
Agricultural traceability systems have an impor-
tant role to play in improving our food safety. In
(Cheng et al., 2013), an analysis of existing agri-
cultural traceability systems is made, and a common
agricultural traceability method is proposed, describ-
ing the traceability information of different products
with different processes of circulation by quoting the
concepts: traceable resource unit, information gran-
ule, and supply chain, which can be applied to all
agricultural traceability (Cheng et al., 2013).
2.2.3 Traceability and Sustainability in the
Minerals and Mining Sector
Also, in the minerals and mining sector traceability
systems can play an important role towards social and
environmental sustainability, while assuring econom-
ical sustainability.
Western societies are increasingly concerned with
environmental and social sustainability in the supply
of (primary) metals (Alvarenga et al., 2019). Environ-
mental sustainability can be managed from different
perspectives, including a site-oriented one (typically
used by the mining sector) and a product-oriented
one (along the product life cycle). In (Alvarenga
et al., 2019) the differences in these perspectives are
analyzed and discussed, supporting the idea that the
metal/mining sector would have potential benefits if
also adopted the product-oriented perspective.
The ability to track and trace products in a produc-
tion process and in the transportation chain from sup-
plier to customers is important for quality control and
process improvements (Bergquist, 2012), improving
economical sustainability. However, when product
lots intermix, it is often difficult to achieve good trace-
ability. In (Bergquist, 2012), guidelines for improving
traceability and setting up a traceability system in the
iron ore production process are presented.
‘Responsible sourcing’ is an important topic in the
mining sector. The expression is used to address sus-
tainability risks in globalized mineral supply chains,
and refers to a wide range of sustainability objectives
pursued by a variety of approaches (van den Brinka
et al., 2019). In (van den Brinka et al., 2019) a re-
view has been performed, on the existing literature
and company policies about ‘responsible sourcing’ of
minerals. The paper develops a framework for re-
sponsible sourcing, defined as “the management of
social, environmental and/or economic sustainability
in the supply chain through production data”. The au-
thors propose the use of the term ‘responsible sourc-
ing’ as an umbrella encompassing all sourcing de-
signed to be ‘socially responsible’, ‘green’ or ‘sus-
tainable’ (van den Brinka et al., 2019).
Hofmann et al. addresses the management of con-
flict minerals in mineral products’ value chains. Con-
flict minerals are those whose exploration and trade
contribute to human right violations in the country
of extraction and surrounding areas (Hofmann et al.,
2018). Supply chain managers in the West are chal-
lenged to take steps to identify and prevent risks asso-
ciated with conflict minerals, due to the globally dis-
persed nature of supply chains and the opacity of the
origin of commodities (Hofmann et al., 2018).
2.2.4 Traceability and Sustainability in the
Supply Chain Management
Some of the previously cited references address trace-
ability along the entire products’ supply chain, from
their harvesting, extraction or production and first
sale, until the sale to the final customer, passing
through the transportation, storage, transformation
and sale of each product or product lot. Bjarne
Bergquist addresses this problem for the iron ore
value chain (Bergquist, 2012). Da Cruz et al. address
the same problem for the fisheries and aquaculture
value chain (Cruz et al., 2019; da Cruz et al., 2019).
And, other examples exist.
In (Saberi et al., 2019), the authors examine how
blockchain technology can overcome potential barri-
ers, such as inter-/intra-organisational, technical, and
external barriers, and then propose future research
directions to overcome such barriers and to adopt
blockchain technology for supply chain management.
Traceability is a demand from customers and other
value chain operators, driven by increasing product
quality demands and customers awareness. In Phar-
maceutical and in Food products value chains, the in-
terest in traceability also includes safety aspects, de-
manding, for instance, the continuous measurement
of products’ transport and storage conditions.
In some value chains, product geographical ori-
gin and location of products is also important, either
because of environmental sustainability issues or be-
cause of origin certification reasons.
Sundarakani et al. write on the importance of
green supply chain in modern business environment,
examining the heat flux and carbon wastages across
the supply chain. The paper identifies some of the
heat and carbon influencing drivers, such as Mode of
Transport, Inventory Policy, Network Structure, etc.,
and proposes a model to measure the carbon footprint
across the supply chain (Sundarakani et al., 2008).
In (Foogooa and Dookhitram, 2014), the authors
present a self-green ICT maturity assessment tool,
which, in their words, is simple, efficient and accessi-
ble. Some business benefits arising from the proposed
green ICT maturity self-assessment tool are also illus-
trated (Foogooa and Dookhitram, 2014).
In (da Cruz et al., 2020), the authors are using
a distributed App based on a smart contract on the
Ethereum blockchain to trace the carbon footprint of
products and organizations.
2.2.5 Traceability and Sustainability in the
Traditional/Regional Products Industry
Traditional products try, most times, to preserve the
origin of production and the manufacturing process,
in order to preserve traditional characteristics such as
quality, flavor, texture, etc. The processes can, how-
ever, be slightly altered to improve hygiene or work-
ing conditions. These products usually are more ex-
pensive, and so they are often subject to forgery.
Products’ traceability is typically related to the
product’s geographical origin and location, and their
transport and storage conditions. While properties
such as temperature of transport or storage have
mainly to do with quality control and food safety,
other properties such as the geographical origin of
raw materials (e.g. bulk grains, fruit, milk, meat) or
of finished traditional products (e.g. cheese, smoked
or charcuterie products, traditional wool blankets or
cloaks), may be linked to reasons of certification of
origin and certification of the production process.
In (Regattieri et al., 2007) a platform is proposed
to support the traceability of the famous Italian cheese
Parmigiano Reggiano from the bovine farm to the fi-
nal consumer. The framework supports the identifica-
tion of the characteristics of the product in its differ-
ent aspects along the value chain: bovine farm, dairy,
seasoning warehouse and packaging factory.
Biswas et al. propose a blockchain-based trace-
ability system for the wine supply chain to record de-
tailed information in order to trace the origin, produc-
tion and purchase history of the wine. The imple-
mented blockchain system incorporates the transac-
tions of all primary entities in the chain (grape grow-
ers, wine producers, bulk distributors, transit cellars,
fillers/packers, finished goods distributors, whole-
salers, and retailer entities) (Biswas et al., 2017).
2.2.6 Traceability Platforms should enable
Public Scrutiny
The lack of transparency and traceability in supply
chains leads to critical issues, some specific to par-
ticular business sectors. As argued in the previ-
ous sections, products traceability increases the con-
fidence of all stakeholders in the supply chains. Pub-
lic scrutiny of the traceability platforms increases the
confidence of all those involved in the traceability in-
formation captured and registered.
According to Kirsi Niinimaki finding ethical in-
formation from the consumer point of view is “prob-
lematic”, but the need for that information is strong
(Niinimaki, 2009). Consumers need to be informed
to take better, or more conscious, decisions when it
comes to select a product to buy or consume. Con-
sumers want to know the origin of the products they
are buying or eating, and where, how and in what con-
ditions products are produced, transported and stored
(Cruz and da Cruz, 2019).
2.2.7 Traceability platforms are difficult to put
into massive practice
Traceability platforms need all operators in the supply
chain to be involved in providing true and reliable in-
formation about the origin and conditions of harvest/
production/ manufacture, transport, storage or other.
When implementing a traceability platform, informa-
tion must start to be registered in the beginning of the
chain, and it may take some time to have all informa-
tion about the supply chain collected in the platform.
This must not demote consumers and other involved
stakeholders in demanding full traceability informa-
tion for all products.
2.2.8 Blockchain-based Traceability platforms
are expensive to operate
Motivated by the advantages of blockchain tech-
nology, including decentralization, transparency, au-
tomation, and immutability characteristics, a growing
number of businesses are thinking of it as the basis
for redefining their existing operational systems (Fu
et al., 2018) and automating their supply chain pro-
cesses.
Blockchain has emerged as a reliable solution that
can enable and ensure secure information sharing
over the network. Blockchain technology is being ap-
plied in multiple fields including implementing trace-
ability in the supply chain. Agrawal et al. explores
blockchain’s potential in implementing a blockchain-
based traceability system for the textile and cloth-
ing supply chain (Agrawal et al., 2018). Fu et al.
also study an environmentally sustainable solution for
the fashion apparel manufacturing industry, which is
based on the blockchain. Incorporating an Emission
Trading Scheme, the proposed framework exposes
carbon emission to the public and establishes a fea-
ture to reduce the emissions for all key steps of cloth-
ing making (Fu et al., 2018).
Several other examples of blockchain use in trace-
ability platforms could be presented.
Despite their known benefits, blockchains have
also several disadvantages, being their inefficiency
the most annoying one. This inefficiency is linked to
the protocol used to distribute data and reach consen-
sus between the miners. Since mining is a competitive
task, and there is just one winner in every transaction,
the work of every other miner is wasted. The “proof
of work” protocol (used in the Blockchain) is the most
inefficient one, not only because it is slow to reach
consensus, but also because the competition between
miners wastes a lot of energy. For example, in 2019,
bitcoin consumed approximately 66.7 terawatt-hours
per year, according to the bitcoin energy consumption
tracker at Digiconomist1. This is about the same total
energy consumption of the Czech Republic2.
There are other forms of consensus protocols
more energy efficient, such as Proof of Stake (PoS),
Proof of Elapsed Time (PoET), Proof of Existence
1https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
2https://www.vox.com/2019/6/18/18642645/bitcoin-
energy-price-renewable-china
(PoE), Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS), Proof of Ac-
tivity (hybrid of proof of work and proof of stake),
among others. But, a public blockchain with an effi-
cient protocol that ensures committing several trans-
action blocks per minute is yet to appear.
3 CONCLUSIONS
Economic development has been traditionally based
in purely financial performance of companies and
states, without regarding how those companies and
states deal with social and environmental aspects.
Currently, consumers tend to be more alert to the so-
cial and environmental aspects, forcing companies,
brands and governments to care about those aspects
as well. This is motivating stakeholders from several
economic branches and industries to make their sup-
ply chains more transparent. The report presented in
(Sanders et al., 2019) for the fashion industry, con-
cludes that, since 2013, “there has been 32% increase
in companies who are tracing their inputs suppliers
and 31% increase in companies who are tracing their
raw materials suppliers”. The same study also con-
cludes that, despite these improvements, “traceability
remains a significant challenge across the industry”.
This position paper has presented arguments de-
fending that traceability platforms are the key for
tracing social and environmental parameters, besides
the economic ones. And that blockchain technology
is the answer for registering this traceability infor-
mation. Although the arguments for traceability to-
wards sustainability, presented in section 2, are fo-
cused on the Fashion, Food and Forestry, and min-
ing industries, several similar arguments could be ob-
tained from industries such as automotive, technolog-
ical, pharmaceutical, and other industries.
Currently, the global opaque set up of some sup-
ply chains raises challenges when providing trust to
customers and other supply chain operators. It is of-
ten impossible to trace products back to their origins,
disabling the possibility of measuring their social and
environmental impact (Montet and Ray, 2018).
For making transparent supply chains possible,
which enable product traceability from production of
raw materials to selling the final product to the fi-
nal consumer, information at each stage of a supply
chain has to be collected, stored and made available
for consultation by the public in general. Thus, con-
sumers will have the possibility to decide according
to their conscience, when selecting and buying their
products. The collected information must serve the
three sustainability dimensions (social, environmen-
tal and economic).
For this purpose, the blockchain technology seems
to be the most suitable. The blockchain technology
offers a reliable solution for traceability platforms,
several of which have been referenced in this paper.
The main blockchain’s drawback is its efficiency in
terms of transactions per second. New blockchains
are being developed with efficiency in mind (e.g. Car-
dano, Eris), which makes us believe that blockchains
will be in the future of traceability platforms for sus-
tainability.
REFERENCES
Adams, W. (2006). The future of sustainability: Re-
thinking environment and development in the twenty-
first century. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers
Meeting, 29 - 31 January 2006.
Agrawal, T. K., Sharma, A., and Kumar, V. (2018). Artifi-
cial Intelligence for Fashion Industry in the Big Data
Era, chapter Blockchain-Based Secured Traceability
System for Textile and Clothing Supply Chain, pages
197–208. Springer.
˚
Ahman, H. (2013). Social sustainability - society at the
intersection of development and maintenance. Local
Environment, 18(10):1153–1166.
Alvarenga, R. A., Dewulf, J., Guin´
ee, J., Schulze, R., Wei-
hed, P., Bark, G., and Drielsma, J. (2019). Towards
product-oriented sustainability in the (primary) metal
supply sector. Resources, Conservation & Recycling,
145:40–48.
Basiago, A. D. (1999). Economic, social, and environ-
mental sustainability in development theory and urban
planning practice. The Environmentalist.
Bergquist, B. (2012). Traceability in iron ore processing
and transports. Minerals Engineering, 30:44–51.
Biswas, K., Muthukkumarasamy, V., and Tan, W. L. (2017).
Blockchain based wine supply chain traceability sys-
tem. In Future Technologies Conference (FTC).
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the world commis-
sion on environment and development: Our common
future. Technical report, World Commission on Envi-
ronment and Development.
Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Crippa, L., and Moretto, A. (2012).
Environmental sustainability in fashion supply chains:
An exploratory case based research. International
Journal of Production Economics, 135(2):659–670.
Cheng, C., Jiang, P., and Liu2, J. (2013). A common trace-
ability method for agricultural products based on data
center. Sensor Letters, 11.
Choi, T.-M. and Luo, S. (2019). Data quality challenges
for sustainable fashion supply chain operations in
emerging markets: Roles of blockchain, government
sponsors and environment taxes. Transportation Re-
search Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
131:139–152.
Cruz, E. F. and da Cruz, A. M. R. (2019). A food value
chain integrated business process and domain mod-
els for product traceability and quality monitoring.
In 21st Int’l Conf. on Enterprise Information Systems
(ICEIS), Heraklion, Crete, Greece. INSTICC.
Cruz, E. F., da Cruz, A. M. R., and Gomes, R. (2019). Anal-
ysis of a traceability and quality monitoring platform
for the fishery and aquaculture value chain. In 14th
Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Tech-
nologies (CISTI 2019).
da Cruz, A. M. R., Cruz, E. F., Moreira, P. M., Carreira, R.,
ao Gomes, J., Oliveira, J., and Gomes, R. (2019). On
the design of a platform for traceability in the fishery
and aquaculture value chain. In 14th Iberian Conf. on
Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI 2019).
da Cruz, A. M. R., Santos, F., Mendes, P., and Cruz, E. F.
(2020). Blockchain-based traceability of carbon foot-
print a solidity smart contract for ethereum. In 22st
International Conference on Enterprise Information
Systems (ICEIS).
Di Ciccio, C., Cecconi, A., Mendling, J., Felix, D., Haas,
D., Lilek, D., Riel, F., Rumpl, A., andUhlig, P. (2018).
Blockchain-based traceability of inter-organisational
business processes. In Business Modeling and Soft-
ware Design, pages 56–68. Springer Int’l Publishing.
Donnelly, K. A.-M. and PetterOlsen (2012). Catch to land-
ing traceability and the effects of implementation – a
case study from the norwegian white fish sector. Food
Control, 27(1):228–233.
Duan, Y., Mao, M., Wang, R., Fu, Z., and Xu, M. (2017). A
framework for the successful implementation of food
traceability systems in china. The Information Society
- An International Journal, 33(4):226–242.
Foogooa, R. and Dookhitram, K. (2014). A self green ict
maturity assessment tool for smes. In Proceedings of
the IST-Africa 2014, Mauritius.
Fu, B., Shu, Z., and Liu, X. (2018). Blockchain enhanced
emission trading framework in fashion apparel manu-
facturing industry. Sustainability.
Gilbert, R., Stevenson, D., Girardet, H., and Stren, R.
(1996). Making Cities Work: The role of authrori-
ties in the urban environment. Earthscan Publications,
Ltd., London.
Gobbi, L. and Massa, I. (2016). Supply chain manage-
ment in textile sector: the case of the italian t-fashion
traceability system. Int’l Journal of Environment and
Health.
Haleem, A., Khan, S., and Khan, M. I. (2019). Traceability
implementation in food supply chain: A grey-dematel
approach. Journal of Information Processing in Agri-
culture, 6:335–348.
Hofmann, H., Schleper, M. C., and Blome, C. (2018). Con-
flict minerals and supply chain due diligence: An ex-
ploratory study of multi-tier supply chains. Journal of
Business Ethics, 147(1):115–141.
James, P. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Prac-
tice. Routledge.
Krajn´
ıkov´
a, K., Smetankov´
a, J., and Beh´
unov´
a, A. (2019).
Building sustainability and building information mod-
elling. Int’l Scientific Journal about Technologies.
Kumar, V., Hallqvist, C., and Ekwall, D. (2017). Develop-
ing a framework for traceability implementation in the
textile supply chain. MDPI.
McFall-Johnsen, M. (2019). The fashion industry emits
more carbon than international flights and maritime
shipping combined. Business Insider.
McKenzie, S. (2004). Social sustainability: Towards some
definitions. Technical report, Hawke Research Insti-
tute Univ. South Australia Magill, South Australia.
Hawke Research Inst. Working Paper Series, No 27.
Montet, D. and Ray, R. C., editors (2018). Food Traceability
and Authenticity: Analytical Techniques, chapter His-
tory of food traceability. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Niinimaki, K. (2009). Consumer values and eco-fashion in
the future. In Future of the Consumer Society.
Rasouli, A. H. and Kumarasuriyar, A. (2016). The social
dimention of sustainability: Towards some definitions
and analysis. Journal of Social Science for Policy Im-
plications, 4(2):23–34.
Regattieri, A., Gamberi, M., and Manzini, R. (2007). Trace-
ability of food products: General framework and ex-
perimental evidence. Journal of Food Engineering,
81(2):347–356.
Roy, L. (2019). 5 ways traceability technologies can lead to
a safer, more sustainable world. Part of the Sustain-
able Dev. Impact Summit. World Economic Forum.
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., and Shen, L. (2019).
Blockchain technology and its relationships to sus-
tainable supply chain management. International
Journal of Production Research, 57(7):2117–2135.
Sanders, L., Mawson, J., Tatzenko, J., Hart, C., and
Hollister-Jones, A. (2019). The 2019 ethical fashion
report: The truth behind the barcode. Technical report,
Baptist World Aid Australia.
Scamans, S. (2016). Fast fashion and sustainability.
Helsinki Met. Univ. of Applied Sciences. MSc thesis.
Shen, B. and Li, Q. (2015). Impacts of returning unsold
products in retail outsourcing fashion supply chain: A
sustainability analysis. Sustainability.
Sundarakani, B., Goh, M., de Souza, R., and Shun, C.
(2008). Measuring carbon footprints across the supply
chain. In Proceeding of the 13th International Sympo-
sium on Logistics (ISL2008): Integrating the Global
Supply Chain, pages 555–562, Nottingham University
Business School, UK.
Thakur, M., Mosher, G. A., Brown, B. R., Bennet, G. S.,
and Shepherd, H. E. (2009). Food safety series—
traceability in the bulk grain supply chain. Agricul-
tural and Biosystems Engineering Publications. Iowa
State University Digital Repository.
van den Brinka, S., Kleijna, R., Tukkera, A., and Huisman,
J. (2019). Approaches to responsible sourcing in min-
eral supply chains. Resources, Conservation & Recy-
cling, 145:389–398.
Xiaoshuan, Z., Jian, Z., Feng, L., Zetian, F., and Weisong,
M. (2010). Strengths and limitations on the operating
mechanisms of traceability system in agro food, china.
Food Control, 21(6):825–829.
Zhao, B. (2015). Food safety in china: application of trace-
ability along the supply chain.
