Exploring the barriers and enablers of technology adoption for managing social sustainability in supply chains

Managing social sustainability in the supply chain has received significant attention in academic, professional and policy circles, notably in recent years due to persistent human and labour rights violations, particularly at the supply base. Human and labour rights violations in supply chains, including child and forced labour, unfair wage systems, poor working conditions and physical abuse of workers, have been documented in media and industry auditing reports over the years (Liang et al., 2024). Therefore, stakeholders within and beyond the supply chain are keen to take robust actions to tackle pertinent social sustainability issues as an utmost priority (Grybauskas et al., 2022). Addressing such issues is becoming paramount for firms to secure their legitimacy and remain competitive in today’s markets (Chaudhuri et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2024). Ignoring social sustainability violations can potentially damage a firm's reputation, reduce commitment and job satisfaction among its employees and eventually deteriorate overall efficiency and effectiveness (Golicic et al., 2020). Hence, the integration of social sustainability into supply chain management has become an appealing notion for firms, offering strategic collaboration within the supply chain members to enhance the well-being of workers, customers, suppliers and community (Sodhi and Tang, 2019).

Many developed countries, like the UK, USA, Australia and Germany, have already taken significant steps to address socially unsustainable practices within supply chains by introducing transparent and robust laws and regulations. A notable example is the UK’s Modern Slavery Act (2015) and the German Act on Corporate Due Diligence in Supply Chains. These regulations compel supply chain firms to proactively develop sound policies that mitigate social risks. In response to this mounting pressure, firms have implemented a range of actions, including voluntary measures (e.g. codes of conduct), assessment mechanisms (e.g. auditing), relational strategies (e.g. power dynamics) and collaborative approaches (e.g. supplier development) (Alghababsheh and Gallear, 2022). However, despite these actions, human and labour rights violations persist in supply chains, highlighting the urgent need for more effective, scalable and innovative solutions.

Managing social sustainability in the supply chain by firms has received increased research attention in recent years (Alghababsheh and Gallear, 2022). The majority of existing research has focused on formal actions by firms to advance social sustainability in supply chains (e.g. assessments, collaboration and certification). However, implementing assessments, collaboration and certification to manage social sustainability faces challenges such as cost, data reliability, geographical distance, trust issues, supplier capacity and supply chain complexity (Alghababsheh et al., 2020; Awaysheh and Klassen, 2010; Huq and Stevenson, 2020), limiting their effectiveness without deeper systemic change. Recent studies have started recognising the role of modern technology for more effective management of social sustainability within supply chains (Jiang et al., 2024). For instance, research has demonstrated that the Internet of Things (IoT) can be leveraged to monitor working conditions and ensure a fair wage system (Khan et al., 2021). In addition, implementing technology in supply chains can facilitate ethical procurement and responsible recruitment (Chaudhuri et al., 2023). Moreover, blockchain technology can streamline the manufacturing process, resulting in ethically sourced products and improved worker well-being (Choi and Mohamed, 2023). Furthermore, digital technology holds the potential to improve corporate social responsibility by enhancing work environments and preventing occupational accidents (Ambrogio et al., 2022).

Despite the increasing recognition of the potential of modern technology for supply chain social sustainability, empirical research on its adoption and implementation remains limited (Jiang et al., 2024). Although prior research, notably Jiang et al. (2024) has proposed a conceptual-based framework derived from a literature review using the Technology–Organisation–Environment (TOE) and Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theories, these frameworks predominantly offer a generalised, high-level view of adoption antecedents. Moreover, while TOE and DOI are useful in identifying broad structural and contextual factors influencing adoption (e.g. technological), they fall short in capturing relational, cultural and operational nuances that can significantly shape technology adoption in socially sustainable supply chains. Therefore, this study seeks to address this gap by empirically exploring enablers and barriers through a multi-case study approach, focusing on different industry sectors to uncover sector-specific and cross-sectoral insights. Exploring these barriers and enablers of technology adoption in socially sustainable supply chains is critical, as it can provide actionable insights to firms striving to improve their social sustainability performance. By identifying and analysing these factors, firms can better navigate challenges, leverage opportunities and enhance their contributions to social sustainability practices. The following research question is developed to guide the rest of the study:

To answer this research question, this study adopts a multiple-case study methodology, analysing 46 in-depth semi-structured interviews with managers from 18 firms from different industries (i.e. fashion and apparel, food and beverages, electronics and pharmaceuticals) to explore the barriers and enablers of technology adoption for social sustainability in the supply chain. The scope of the research encompasses multiple sectors, allowing for cross-industry comparisons to determine whether these factors vary by industry or exhibit commonalities.

The study contributes to the literature in the following ways. Firstly, the study extends theories pertaining to the technology adoption frameworks in the context of supply chain social sustainability by accounting also for relational, cultural and operational nuances, providing more comprehensive insights into the enablers and drivers influencing the adoption of technology for managing social sustainability issues. Secondly, unlike prior studies that have predominantly focused on single-sector contexts such as the garment industry, this study adopts a multi-sector, comparative empirical design, producing sector-contingent and cross-sector insights into the technology adoption within socially sustainable supply chains. Finally, the study presents robust guidelines to managers and policymakers on how to effectively overcome the barriers of technology implementation for social sustainability in supply chains. These guidelines can be helpful for firms in safeguarding against the malpractices of technology implementation as well as maximise the potential of the technology (e.g. blockchain, AI, IoT, etc.) within supply chains.

The remainder of the paper is structured in the following manner. Section 2.1 briefly touches base on the definition of social sustainability in supply chains. Section 2.2 communicates the role of technology within sustainable supply chains. Section 3 describes the methodology employed, including justification of multiple case studies, study sample and sampling process and data coding and analysis process. Section 4 presents the results in the form of themes (enablers and barriers to the adoption of technology for supply chain social sustainability). Section 5 contextualises the results within current literature and articulates the implications of this study. Section 6 extrapolates the limitations and future research directions.

The concept of sustainable development aims to ensure that current and future generations sustain their environmental, social and economic needs. Therefore, sustainability has been widely recognised as a tri-dimensional concept consisting of environmental, social and economic sustainability (Zhang et al., 2024). However, social sustainability differs from environmental and economic sustainability in that it primarily focuses on human-centric aspects such as labour conditions, fair wages and worker well-being rather than environmental or financial performance (Monzer et al., 2018). Social sustainability has recently garnered significant attention in supply chains as firms strive to address human and labour rights violations. However, it has received far less empirical investigation in the context of supply chain compared to environmental and economic sustainability (Alghababsheh and Gallear, 2022. Unlike environmental and economic sustainability, which have established business models and frameworks, social sustainability in the supply chain often lacks standardised frameworks, making its implementation complex and context-specific (Tsai et al., 2021).

Supply chain social sustainability is understood as a practice that promotes fair labour conditions, protection of human rights and community development throughout supply chains (Kouhizadeh et al., 2021). These supply chains are required to integrate ethical considerations into their procurement, production and distribution processes to manage labour rights and working conditions (e.g. fair wages, reasonable working hours, freedom of association), workplace health and safety (e.g. ensuring physical and mental well-being of workers), human rights violations (e.g. forced labour, discrimination, harassment and exploitation), equity and inclusivity (e.g. hiring marginalised and underrepresented people) and local community development (e.g. development programmes) (Alghababsheh and Gallear, 2022; Silvestre et al., 2023; Yawar and Seuring, 2017).

To ensure social sustainability across the supply chain, companies have relied on public and private models. The public model represents government regulations and law enforcement with regard to supply chain social sustainability issues. On the other hand, due to the lack of an effective public model, particularly in developing countries, companies developed and used their own private model, which involves the use of formal and relational practices to meet stakeholders’ expectations on social sustainability in the supply chain (Alghababsheh et al., 2023). The formal practices comprises assessment (e.g. auditing, certification, etc.) and collaboration practices (e.g. development and capacity-building programmes, resource allocation). The collaboration can involve internal and external stakeholders (traditional and non-traditional supply chain actors) that work together to bring transparency and create long-term value while minimising social harm (Siems et al., 2023; Rodríguez et al., 2016). The relational practices involve the use of relationship power and justice to drive supply chain partners (suppliers) to demonstrate commitment to social responsibility in their facilities (Alghababsheh and Gallear, 2022). However, implementing such practices to ensure supply chain social sustainability is often hindered by challenges inherent in supply chains. Today’s supply chains have multiple tiers and are extended across multiple geographical locations, making it hard to track labour practices beyond direct suppliers (Awaysheh and Klassen, 2010; Hannibal and Kauppi, 2019). Additionally, implementing social audits and training requires significant investment, which makes managing supply chain social sustainability less attractive to firms (Nath et al., 2024). However, technology plays a critical, enabling role in addressing many of the challenges in implementing socially sustainable supply chain management. Recent studies highlight that digital platforms and AI-driven audits are transforming how firms manage social compliance within supply chains (Mani, 2022; Wilkerson et al., 2023). Additionally, centralised platforms help companies monitor compliance, provide training materials and evaluate supplier compliance across multiple sustainability metrics. Table 1 provides a brief summary of the key literature on socially sustainable supply chains.

It is crucial for firms to implement technology to advance social sustainability across the supply chain. Industry 4.0 technologies, such as blockchain, artificial intelligence (AI), the IoT and big data analytics, are transforming socially sustainable practices within supply chains (Dwivedi and Paul, 2022). These technologies enhance transparency, improve stakeholder collaboration and reduce compliance costs (Song et al., 2023).

A recent study provides further evidence that blockchain can provide immutable records, enabling real-time tracking of goods and labour conditions (Jiang et al., 2024). Saberi et al. (2019), on the other hand, pinpoint that blockchain has the potential to increase the accountability of ethical practices. Such traceability systems help supply chain firms monitor compliance with labour standards and prevent unethical practices such as child labour. Similarly, AI-powered monitoring tools enable real-time compliance tracking, reducing the reliance on traditional auditing methods (Yang et al., 2023).

On the other hand, Govindan et al. (2021) state that digital platforms can facilitate collaboration among stakeholders, enabling seamless information sharing critical for implementing socially sustainable practices. Furthermore, Kouhizadeh et al. (2021) state that AI and IoT can optimise supply chain operations, reducing inefficiencies and lowering costs associated with compliance and monitoring. Big data analytics has also emerged as a powerful tool, allowing firms to analyse supplier behaviour, predict risk areas and make data-driven policy decisions (Yadav et al., 2024).

The literature also sheds light on challenges to technology adoption in socially SSCM. Kamble et al. (2020), for example, state that, although technology has inherent benefits, it can increase the financial burden on firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. Many firms lack sufficient resources to invest in high-cost technologies such as blockchain or AI systems, constraining their ability to monitor and enforce socially sustainable practices. Additionally, a study notes that firms struggle with data privacy and security concerns when adopting AI-based monitoring solutions (Chaudhuri et al., 2023). Moreover, Khan et al. (2022) state that firms may face a shortage of skilled employees with the required experience to deploy and manage technology. This issue is particularly pronounced in developing economies, where firms struggle with digital infrastructure and workforce training (Mukherjee et al., 2022). Small suppliers operating in remote areas may be hesitant to adopt technology due to perceived high costs or disruptions to ongoing practices (Quayson et al., 2020).

Consistent with the research question, this paper extends the application of a case study methodology, which involves “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 2009, p. 18). This methodological route is better followed for an under-explored research area (Eisenhardt, 1989), such as the barriers and enablers to the adoption of technology for managing social sustainability in the supply chain. It allows researchers to develop a nuanced understanding of a complicated phenomenon that can extend experience or provide strength to existing knowledge (Welch et al., 2022). The adoption of the technology for social sustainability in the supply chain is a deeply complex phenomenon as it involves collaboration with different stakeholders within and between supply chain firms (see Figure 1).

A multiple-case study method approach was employed in this study. This approach offers compelling evidence, ensures replication, strengthens the emerging constructs and uncovers a better pattern of relations among constructs (Stuart et al., 2002). This approach was also deemed appropriate as it can provide a broader and more nuanced perspective on the enablers and barriers to technology adoption for advancing social sustainability in supply chains, particularly as the barriers and enablers of technology adoption can vary across industries and depend on the supply chain roles within specific geographical regions. Multiple case study also allows researchers to ascertain these subtle differences comprehensively, resulting in a deeper understanding of how contextual factors influence technology (Eisenhardt, 1989). Multiple case studies provide a fine balance with the depth and breadth of the knowledge to be attained, improve the reliability of the findings as results can be transferred from one context to another and enhance the applicability across various contexts, making it the preferred choice for this study (Eisenhardt, 1989) – see Table 2.

The data collection took place from 18 UAE-based firms, including nine suppliers and nine distributors. These suppliers and distributors have been associated with four specific industries, namely, fashion and apparel, food and beverages, electronics and pharmaceuticals. Moreover, these suppliers and distributors have been adopting technology into their supply chain operations. Suppliers from all selected industries have been deploying blockchain and IoT, predominantly into their operations, to navigate the social sustainability challenges such as promoting worker safety and engaging in ethical labour practices. Distributors, on the other hand, executed IoT, blockchain and AI to streamline their forward and reverse logistics processes and to further ensure equitable working conditions across the board. In addition, the respondents interviewed in this study came from diversified backgrounds. They held different designations within their respective firms. Overall, 46 interviews were conducted from the selected 18 firms. Further details on firms and participants are provided in Table 3.

In addition, four analysts, including two externally appointed analysts, participated in the data collection process. The researchers sampled participants using purposive and snowball sampling. Purposive sampling was used to intentionally select participants with the most appropriate knowledge of the social sustainability practices within supply chains. These respondents were also aware of the most robust practices that they deploy in their respective firms to address social sustainability issues. Then, a snowball sampling process was implemented to facilitate the selection of the next participant. This iterative process of purposive and snowball sampling yielded a final sample of 46 respondents.

The interviews were conducted over four months. Most interviews last for 60–90 min. In addition, 40 participants were permitted to tape-record interviews. Hence, extensive interview notes were prepared during interviews with the remaining six participants. Creswell and Creswell (2014) argues that preparing extensive interview notes may become useful when it is difficult to seek permission from the participants to tape-record interviews. After 46 interviews, no new open codes emerged that could have led to the emergence of core categories of enablers and barriers (i.e. technological, organisational, environmental and economic) and specific variables of interest (i.e. barriers and enablers). Therefore, the analysts mutually agreed that theoretical saturation has been achieved due to repeated information. Theoretical saturation is a point in a data collection process at which no new information arises from the data collection and analysis (Fusch and Ness, 2015).

To add another layer of rigour in the study, secondary data were obtained for triangulation purposes (Creswell and Poth, 2016). This data includes firms’ policy documents, websites, newsletters and reports, which were collected and analysed on a periodical basis. A second round of interviews was also carried out with 18 random participants, who participated in the first phase of data collection. The second phase of the interview ran over one and a half months. This round of interviews was conducted to share the summary of the secondary data collected with respondents and to address any discrepancies between the primary and secondary data.

The interview guide was developed in two sequential stages. In the first stage, the literature on the role of technology within socially SSCM was referred to and reviewed to develop interview questions. In the second stage, the analysts conducted five brainstorming sessions to review the initial questions developed in the first stage. After five sessions, the analysts ruled out any questions that appeared redundant and irrelevant and new questions were incorporated that fit the barriers and enablers of technology for managing social sustainability in supply chains.

Four analysts (including two externally appointed analysts) carried out the data collection and analysis process to ensure impartiality, objectivity and rigour. The data coding process was conducted by the analysts following Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) approach, which suggests three types of coding: open, axial and selective coding. Moreover, all four analysts created and recorded the theoretical memos of codes in the NVIVO. These memos record a logical and theoretical explanation behind the development of codes by each analyst (Eisenhardt, 1989). The memos were also shared between all four analysts over meetings to compare and contrast the logical explanation behind the development of codes to ensure a fair thought process. Robust, transparent and objective measures were taken to avoid any biased approach in the data collection and analysis process. In particular, during an open coding process, when a coding difference emerged, analysts examined each other’s theoretical memos to understand why specific incidents/ideas were classified and understood in a certain way.

The analysts proceeded with the within-case study analysis to strengthen the move towards multiple case study analysis in the following steps. Firstly, each analyst reviewed all of the interview transcripts and the secondary data documents pertaining to each case. Secondly, based on the previous review, each analyst wrote a description of each case (Yin, 2009) and exported each case to Eisenhardt’s case database (1989). Thirdly, each analyst examined the transcripts again before carrying out the coding. Moving forward, the analysts analysed the data into different concepts, incidences and occurrences through open coding (Glasser and Strauss, 1967). All four analysts recorded over 210 codes during the open coding process, which assigned a name to symbolise them. The NVIVO software was employed to automatically code the transcripts, integrate the transcripts into one single document and evaluate the generated codes. All the analysts had access to the document with the combined codes of all four analysts. The inter-coder reliability through the merged document in NVIVO emerged to be around 89.5%.

The analysts then employed axial coding to develop categories that emerged from open coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). The analysts put open codes together – under one umbrella – that shared similar meanings/ideas during the axial coding to develop categories. The axial coding helped analysts to compare and cross-cut the categories for further in-depth data analysis. Finally, the analysts carried out selective coding. This was crucial to limit the coding process to the variables of interest only (e.g. barriers and enablers to technology adoption) and to develop an empirically driven pictorial model of the barriers and enablers of technology adoption for social sustainability in supply chains based on data analysis.

The results reveal some interesting themes in the form of enablers and barriers to the adoption of technology for addressing social aspects in supply chains. The themes, narratives and their corresponding raw quotes are presented in detail below (see Figure 2).

Throughout the interviews, respondents reiterated the technological enablers for addressing social sustainability issues in supply chains. Digital infrastructure refers to a robust foundational technology system in place in the form of hardware (e.g. sensors and servers) and networks (e.g. Ethernet) required for integrating and running advanced tools aimed at enhancing social sustainability across supply chain operations. Respondents presented this definition. Respondents stated that a strong digital infrastructure supports the adoption of blockchain technology in socially sustainable businesses. This technology records every transaction in the procurement department and tracks the movements of goods within supply chains. They further contended that the application of blockchain technology ensures that products are ethically sourced, adhere to labour laws and avoid exploitative practices.

Respondents also pinpointed the use of interoperable systems to address social sustainability issues in supply chains. For instance, interoperability can result in seamless collaboration and data sharing among diverse stakeholders and technologies to mitigate poor work conditions (e.g. excessive working hours) across the supply chain. Such integration streamlines transparency, efficiency and compliance, eventually supporting supply chain social sustainability. For example, nine respondents argued that the interoperability system can connect suppliers, logistics providers, manufacturers and retailers, enabling them to share critical information about ongoing and future labour practices, workplace conditions and compliance. Moreover, respondents also stated that their firms have implemented IoT and the latest enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems into their functions, which seamlessly feed data into their ERP and help ensure workers' safety.

Some respondents also noted that interoperability between any existing database and blockchain potentially allows more transparent tracking of goods while systematically retaining historical records from older systems.

Consider another quote

Narratives reveal that the role of senior management is crucial to initiate technology adoption in addressing human aspects within supply chains. Respondents stated that when leaders/senior management prioritise and attempt to align sustainability objectives with the goals of an organisation, they are providing direction, inspiring a culture of accountability, aligning cross-functional teams and allocating sufficient resources necessary for technological integration to address workforce safety and other labour issues across the supply chain. Furthermore, a leadership’s commitment also ensures that sustainability initiatives are well-integrated into the firm’s long-term strategy rather than treated as a sideline project. Without strong management commitment, technology adoption and investment may lack guidance, face implementation challenges or fail to integrate meaningfully into broader supply chain strategies.

Many respondents noted that the adoption of technology to address social aspects requires a strong sense of purpose. In other words, employees must understand the role of technology, and it can potentially streamline work conditions across supply chains. As digital tools become increasingly important for monitoring labour conditions and enhancing transparency, supply chain actors must possess the necessary technical and social competencies to implement and utilise these technologies effectively. Respondents narrated that supply chain firms need to put in place sufficient training programmes that equip the workforce with the required skill set to implement and manage innovative tools. Such tools can effectively foster a sense of ownership and capability to operate technology and raise its awareness across internal stakeholders. The quote below testifies to this.

Some respondents also noted the importance of stakeholder engagement. They argued that collaboration with suppliers, customers, distributors and even not-for-profit organisations such as non-government organisations and charity organisations can potentially create a shared commitment to achieving social sustainability goals within supply chains and enhance the implementation of modern technologies for this purpose. They contended that when stakeholders are fully engaged early in the adoption process, they are more willing to practice and accept the new technologies, which enhances the overall impact of sustainability efforts within a company. In addition, engaged stakeholders are in a better position to share resources and work towards mutual benefits to streamline socially sustainable business practices within firms and across supply chains.

Respondents argued that firms are not the only driving force behind technology adoption in socially sustainable supply chains rather, end-consumers equally contribute to this practice. Narratives revealed that even though firms may not be interested in leveraging technology to contribute to a social aspect of sustainability, there is consistent pressure coming from consumers as they demand ethically sourced products. Respondents stated that today's consumers are educated and well-informed about their purchasing behaviour. Hence, this pressure is incentivising firms to opt for technology that potentially enhances transparency as well as social compliance, such as IoT for monitoring production conditions in real time, or, in other instances, blockchain for traceability of the production along the logistics flow.

Many respondents stated that is onerous on the government as well to raise awareness of social issues within the business domain. Respondents narrate that the government should introduce laws against anti-child labour and workplace safety standards to fully ensure the fair treatment of workers within supply chains, which will ultimately fuel better performance and decision-making. Furthermore, these laws will compel firms to align their supply chain business operations with socially sustainable business frameworks. These respondents particularly referred to the Modern Slavery Act and California Transparency Act that created a robust impact on strict measures taken to eliminate forced labour and any illegal human trafficking, pushing firms to engage in higher accountability and action.

Interestingly, many respondents narrated the need to develop industry standards to address the social issues within their supply chains. Some interesting discussions took place between researchers and participants, outlining how standards like ISO 26000 demystify practices to bolster fair wage systems and eliminate forced labour, ensuring and uploading human rights across supply chains. The respondents also narrated the importance of operational clarity and argued that by defining clear expectations, these standards support supply chain firms to understand to better ascertain what constitutes socially sustainable business practices and the best strategies to achieve them.

Respondents also highlighted that economic enablers play a crucial role in encouraging firms to adopt socially sustainable practices within supply chains, by addressing the financial challenges associated with technology adoption. Respondents argued that different cost-saving technologies or incentive programs facilitate a seamless adoption of technology to mitigate the social element of supply chains.

Respondents noted that accessing affordable and accessible technology will eliminate any hindrances for firms, particularly, small-scale supply chains or firms, and they would be in a better position to adopt socially sustainable practices. For instance, respondents particularly referred to cloud-based software and scalable tools that can reduce any upfront costs, and firms do not necessarily need to purchase expensive technology like blockchain. Some respondents also referred to the sharing of pools or “community-driven-technology-projects” to reduce a firm’s investment by enabling multiple organisations to share costs. They argued that such tools allow more collaborative data sharing among supply chain stakeholders and streamline compliance with social sustainability goals, thus reducing the need for each firm within the supply chain to invest on a standalone basis.

Respondents argued that government and regulatory bodies should create a financial support program to encourage firms to invest in socially sustainable technology. They contended that such incentives reduce financial risks and potentially foster a long-term commitment to eliminate unethical supply chain practices.

Respondents referred to direct financial support, upfront, which can help firms to offset the rising costs of implementing cutting-edge technology to improve work conditions. They further argued that such grants should particularly aim at small and medium-sized supply chain firms that will enable them to compete in a larger market, by opting for socially sustainable and responsible practices, without high financial strain. Respondents also noted that firms, strictly adhering to socially sustainable practices, should be granted tax exemptions or credits so they can use those funds to purchase a technology that can help them contribute to social sustainability issues within typical supply chains.

Respondents narrated that many managers usually fear the potential risks associated with transitioning to socially sustainable supply chains, which includes higher costs or disruptions to operations and supply chains, resulting in a slow adoption of new technologies and practices. Moreover, firms are also reluctant to alter proven strategies even if they prove to be unhelpful. This also includes long-standing organisational cultures that usually push forward gains which often conflict with the principles of sustainability. Such conflicts between internal stakeholders within firms hinder the adoption of technology. Some respondents also pinpointed the resistance from suppliers and manufacturers to embed new technology as they find it hard to comply with new ethical standards due to higher costs or, sometimes, very complex operational complexity, which results in missed opportunities for innovation.

Respondents also referred to the lack of understanding among stakeholders, including leaders, employees, suppliers, manufacturers and consumers about the value of benefits attributed to implementing technology to address socially sustainable issues in supply chains. Discussion with over 13 respondents revealed that many stakeholders do not fully grasp how addressing social issues within sustainable supply chains can improve their reputation in the market, further reduce any associated risks and enhance their profitability in the long run. They also argued that it is important to educate stakeholders on the tangible and intangible benefits of social sustainability. They particularly referred to risk mitigation and differentiation in the supply market. Finally, a limited knowledge about the importance of social aspects results in insufficient internal communication among stakeholders to address sustainability goals. This ultimately leads to fragmentation and low engagement within supply chain member firms.

Respondents also noted a lack of sufficient training among employees as a barrier to adopting technology in addressing social issues within supply chains. They argued that inadequate training occurs when employees within firms lack the necessary knowledge and expertise to effectively implement socially sustainable business practices and technology. Over 25 respondents stressed that many employees are not yet familiar with how to use new technological tools like IoT and blockchain to understand traceability within supply chains and requirements to procure ethically. They narrated that employees possess weak negotiation skills, but addressing social sustainability requires strong negotiation power and stakeholder management skills. Ironically, firms do not take this matter seriously and do not provide sufficient resources to their employees to engage in different training programs, to get hands-on experience with the latest technology.

Respondents expressed their concerns pertaining to the higher costs involved in implementing technology to mitigate social issues, such as blockchain, IoT and AI. They argued that these technologies are also, sometimes, prohibited for organisations, specifically, small and medium-sized firms.

Discussion with several respondents revealed that implementing blockchain technology requires purchasing specialised equipment. On top of that, there are heavy costs involved with getting an appropriate license to install the software. Hence, many small firms are usually excluded from engaging in robust socially sustainable supply chains due to affordability issues. Moreover, upgrading digital infrastructure and securing data through servers or high-speed Internet connectivity further add heavy costs to firms’ expenses. Hence, they are encouraged to opt for less effective technological solutions, which compromise quality, lead to suboptimal results in social-sustainability compliance.

Respondents narrated that quality is somehow compromised when it comes to implementing new technologies to monitor and improve social sustainability. They argued that inconsistent, inaccurate and incomplete data undermine the effectiveness of technologies through various means. For example, respondents pinpointed the issues related to human error. For instance, manual data entry can result in inaccuracies, which can compromise the accuracy of monitoring systems and complying with reports. On the other hand, typically, in an extended supply chain, many respondents use different formats to report, which makes it extremely complex to aggregate and analyse data, hampering decision-making and providing an incomplete picture of social sustainability performance.

Respondents revealed economic barriers that deter firms’ ability to prioritise or invest in socially sustainable business practices within supply chains. Respondent argued that there is intense competition in international supply chains for firms to cut substantial amounts of costs and to further offer lower prices. This practice encourages firms to compromise in different social sustainability areas like a fair wage system and employee well-being. Such mounting costs make firms reluctant to implement systems that can potentially ensure ethical labour conditions, compliance with environmental frameworks and the safety of workers in supply chains. They also noted that suppliers usually have weak negotiation power, and they sometimes operate on a very thin margin, which leaves them with little room to invest in socially sustainable practices. To add fuel to the fire, the rising costs of adopting different certifications such as Fair Trade SA8021 often add additional costs for document preparation, auditing and changes in process.

Respondents contended that they perceived uncertainty about the financial returns associated with implementing socially sustainable business practices. In other words, they raised a concern that it would lower down firm’s profits as they would have to allocate resources to different socially sustainable initiatives.

Respondents argued that it is very difficult to quantify the outright financial benefits of initiatives like fair wage systems, labour practices and outreach programs. In addition, they cautioned that socially sustainable issues have yielded benefits over a longer period, over short-term results, making them less attractive in addressing environmental issues. More importantly, intangible assets such as customer loyalty, the reputation of a brand, satisfaction of employees are not immediately transferable into measuring financial outcomes. Hence, it provides very limited financial value. The respondent argued that there is a very limited prioritised or reward system in place to support social sustainability practices, which limits the perceived business incentives. Respondents argued that some firms are reluctant to invest in sustainable sourcing of some food items because they see no financial benefits, rather worry that such sustainable sourcing will reduce their reputation, and it will become harder to measure compared to any upfront costs.

Discussion with respondents revealed that firms usually prioritise short-term profits and immediate financial outcomes over long-term investment in social sustainability practices, which creates a wider gap between their sound ethical practices and financial priorities. Respondents narrated that firms often face pressure to deliver profits at regular intervals, and there is little room for them to think about engaging in long-term investments. In addition, the salaries of senior management are usually tied to shorter financial metrics. This discourages investment in long-term sustainability practices, and firms perceive social sustainability investment as something that diverts them from generative short-term financial revenues. Respondents argued that such delayed investments in socially sustainable technologies lead to loss of brand loyalty.

Interestingly, narratives reveal that many suppliers/customers are reluctant to implement socially sustainable business practices due to varying social values and norms. Discussions with 17 respondents revealed how an idea of fairness is perceived differently by two different firms. They argued that what is considered legal/ethical in a highly developed region does not necessarily align with the norms of firms operating in underprivileged or remote areas. Moreover, religious practices are intervened. Such practices sometimes conflict with international standards, such as equal work and pay opportunities for women or restrictions on child labour. This makes it difficult for firms to achieve a uniform implementation of global standards. Furthermore, multinational firms usually do not take into account the local context when imposing international standards, which creates a conflict or non-compliance with domestic firms.

Some respondents argued that employees, particularly those working in line management roles, fear job security and a higher workload. Narratives argue that workers begin to feel signs of potential layoff if their firm implements a new technology, which will streamline operations and reduce the need for manual labour. Moreover, when firms change their reporting criteria or opt for strict corporate reporting, this is perceived very negatively by workers as they believe it adds to their existing workload, without providing any financial benefits. This is particularly true if the company fails to adhere to its past promises to workers, as it generates scepticism about the real motives behind developing socially sustainable initiatives. All in all, these employees are resistant to adopting new technologies and may go on strike to disrupt supply chain operations.

This section synthesises the enablers and barriers identified in these results by comparing them across three key dimensions: industry type, supply chain role and organisational size. This comparative lens helps uncover both common and context-specific patterns across these three domains. Importantly, this section now explicitly highlights how certain enablers directly address specific barriers within each context, particularly focusing on the adoption of IoT and blockchain technologies.

1. Fashion and apparel respondents were particularly vocal about cultural misalignments and ethical conflicts between global and local standards, with leadership commitment and consumer-driven ethical demand acting as key enablers to bridge these cultural barriers.

2. Electronics firms often highlighted interoperability and ERP integration as key enablers that mitigate technological barriers related to complex system integration but were hindered by short-term profit pressures, which could be partially offset by organisational strategies emphasising long-term sustainability and government subsidies.

3. Pharmaceutical firms benefited from stronger regulatory guidance and industry-specific certification support (e.g. ISO standards) that helped overcome compliance and financial barriers associated with IoT and blockchain adoption.

4. Food and beverage participants emphasised consumer pressure and government subsidies as key enablers that alleviate economic constraints and motivate technology adoption despite workforce training gaps and data inconsistencies.

1. Suppliers struggled more with thin profit margins, limited training and cultural misfit with imposed global standards; however, collaboration with industry partners and capacity-building initiatives emerged as enablers that helped reduce these challenges.

2. Distributors, often closer to market-facing operations, reported stronger access to financial incentives and a greater focus on system integration (e.g. ERP, IoT), which helped address technological and economic barriers.

3. Both supply chain actors shared concerns about data inconsistency, training gaps and low perceived return on investment, but these were increasingly mitigated by organisational leadership commitment and investment in employee upskilling.

1. Large firms showed stronger leadership commitment, budget allocation for training and internal IT capability, which directly enabled the adoption of IoT and blockchain by overcoming technological and organisational barriers.

2. SMEs, in contrast, faced barriers related to affordability, inadequate training and limited access to direct government incentives. Nevertheless, SMEs showed greater agility and openness to collaborative tech-sharing models, acting as enablers that partially offset resource constraints. Table 4 below presents cross-case examination of the key findings.

The above table concludes that all four industries, including fashion and apparel, food and beverage, electronics and pharmaceuticals, benefit from the presence of robust digital infrastructure and interoperability that supports the implementation of blockchain and IoT. These technologies enhance transparency, traceability and compliance with social sustainability standards. In addition, organisational barriers such as leadership commitment and training opportunities are consistent enablers across industries. Moreover, stakeholder collaboration, particularly between suppliers, distributors and external partners, emerges as a key enabler in implementing socially responsible technologies. The table also suggests that government grants, subsidies and tax exemptions are widely cited enablers, particularly for anti-child labour and worker safety technology, while changing consumer behaviour is noted as a cultural pressure driving innovation in multiple sectors. Finally, different economic enablers such as cloud-based, scalable tools and cost-saving benefits of technology are also broadly recognised, particularly in fashion, food and electronics.

Findings suggest that the implementation of technology for advancing social sustainability in the supply chain has important implications not just for firms, but for society and the environment. In addition, the impact of investing in technology in a meaningful way ranges from simple operational excellence to the social and economic level, which can substantially influence global supply chain practices and the achievement of socially sustainable supply chain goals. The theoretical contributions of this study are articulated below as follows:

The results of this study suggest that technological enablers are the driving force of social sustainability practices within supply chains. Such enablers can address a range of social issues within the supply chain including labour, ethical and inclusivity issues. Moreover, enablers like interoperability can foster collaboration, compliance with fair labour practices and ensure transparency in ethical sourcing. While current literature sheds light on the importance of technological enablers (Chaudhuri et al., 2023; Choi and Mohamed, 2023), it does not reveal what specific enablers contribute to socially SSCM and in what ways. This study contributes to this body of literature. Firstly, by revealing enablers like interoperability and strong digital infrastructure, and secondly, by arguing that interoperability fosters collaboration and digital infrastructure ethical sourcing within supply chains.

Furthermore, the role of senior management is absolutely critical and sets a foundation for firms to implement technology adoption for socially SSCM. This demonstrates a sound interplay between leadership vision and strict alignment of socially SSCM with the long-term organisational strategy of firms. These findings are new to the socially SSCM literature. The findings of this study also built on the scope of stakeholder theory. It does so by articulating how important stakeholder engagements are in fostering resource sharing. Results demystify that engaging stakeholders certainly puts pressure on them to adopt socially sustainable supply chain practices. These results align with the findings of current literature. For example, Ambrogio et al. (2022) note the role of stakeholders in mitigating social issues within supply chains. The results also argue that consumers' demand for ethically sourced products leads firms to shift their focus from being cost-effective to value-centric and to further address evolving consumer dynamics to balance socially sustainable supply chain practices. These findings are new to the socially SSCM, given the role of technology. In addition, government policies to incorporate technology can act as a catalyst for firms and industries to transform labour practices and ensure sound compliance with promoting fair work practices across supply chains. Although recent literature argues the role regulator bodies can play to encourage firms to adopt technologies to reduce inefficiencies in socially SSCM (Liang et al., 2024; Karmaker et al., 2023), they do not demystify how this can be achieved. This paper builds on this body of literature. For example, the government can provide funds to firms to implement technology and then deploy strict reporting requirements pertaining to workplace safety standards that can eradicate unethical practices like child labour or forced labour. Regulatory bodies can also ask firms to implement stringent workplace safety standards, which will ultimately create an environment where firms use technology like IOT to monitor the conditions of workers.

Results show that resistance from internal and external stakeholders, like customers, and suppliers underscores the need to implement technologies. This presents a further opportunity for firms to think about change management practices that aim to address conflicting goals to address social issues within SSCM. These findings build on current literature. For example, Al-Emran (2023) notes that stakeholder pressure does not necessarily act as a barrier to the adoption of technology. However, the result from this study presents a conflicting perspective, showing that, indeed, pressure from internal and external stakeholders has a huge impact on firms' readiness to adapt to technology.

Results further reveal that higher upfront costs pose a significant barrier, particularly for small firms. These costs can prevent SMEs from actively participating in socially sustainable supply chains. Similar results are presented by the current literature. For example, Rahman et al. (2023) note that high costs are major obstacles for firms to bring in new technological tools. However, this study builds further on this body of literature and suggests that these high costs are perceived by firms due to a lack of collaborative partnership between them or limited financial support or subsidies available that can help make these technologies more accessible for smaller firms. The results also add new knowledge to this particular aspect, stressing that many firms have poor data quality and reporting practices that undermine the effectiveness of such technologies in achieving socially sustainable business practices. These findings are new to the socially SSCM literature on the role of technology. Similarly, a low perceived rerun on investing in technology, as well as a focus on short-term profits, emerged as a key economic barrier to implementing technology to achieve socially sustainable supply chains. Vishwakarma et al. (2023) and Ferreira et al. (2023) discuss high cost as a key economic barrier to implementing technology in socially SSCM. This study adds two new economic barriers to the literature in the form of perceived low return on investment and a focus on short-term profits. The analysis of the results further suggests that cultural barriers equally contribute to a failure of technology adoption in socially SSCM. In particular, cultural differences arising from varying social values and norms, as well as challenges associated with aligning global sustainable standards with local practices, are key cultural misalignments to adopting technology. Oriekhoe et al. (2023) referred briefly to the idea of cultural barriers as an impediment to technology adoption within the context of socially SSCM. However, this study digs deeper into the cultural impediments to the adoption of technology. For instance, it reveals that cultural misalignment and lower satisfaction among employees as the key barriers. It further delves into those barriers and empirically shows that cultural misalignment happens due to religious practices coming into conflict with international standards, as well as multinational firms do not consider the local context while implementing technology, while lower job satisfaction among employees is caused due to fear of potential job loss after technology implementation or skepticism about the role of technology from one culture to another.

The results of this study offer clear and actionable practical implications for firms and industries aiming to integrate social sustainability into their supply chain strategies. Our findings emphasise that embedding social sustainability must be tailored to specific industries and supply chain roles to effectively balance financial goals with social responsibility. For instance, while manufacturing firms face critical barriers such as high-cost pressures and limited technology access, retail and distribution sectors benefit from strong enablers like consumer demand for ethical sourcing. This underscores the necessity for industry-specific strategies to overcome challenges and leverage opportunities.

Firms in technology-intensive sectors (e.g. pharmaceuticals) should prioritise mitigating financial constraints by pursuing collaborative investments, joint ventures and government subsidies. Conversely, industries based on traditional labour-intensive models (e.g. food and beverage supply chains) need to focus on overcoming resistance to change by cultivating a culture of technological acceptance through comprehensive training programs.

Across all industries, a pervasive barrier is the lack of training and awareness, inhibiting technology adoption for social sustainability. To address this, firms, especially SMEs that often lack formal training systems, must invest in tailored capacity-building initiatives to equip employees and suppliers with the necessary digital skills. Furthermore, firms should implement structured stakeholder engagement frameworks to reduce cultural resistance and build trust, particularly in multinational supply chains where regional differences affect adoption.

This study reveals important interconnections between barriers and enablers, providing insights for more effective strategy development. Understanding these dynamic relationships enables firms to leverage enablers to overcome barriers, increasing the feasibility of adopting socially sustainable technologies. For example:

1. Financial constraints (barrier) can be offset through establishing industry-wide collaborations (enabler) that distribute the costs of adopting advanced technologies like blockchain and IoT. Additionally, the provision of government subsidies can mitigate financial constraints that hinder the implementation of technologies aimed at managing social sustainability within supply chains. To leverage this opportunity, firms can explore public–private partnerships, apply for available government subsidy programmes and engage with industry associations to advocate for policy incentives.

2. Lack of awareness (barrier) can be mitigated by enhancing transparency and communication (enabler) and establishing training and development programmes, fostering a culture of digital adoption.

3. Resistance to change (barrier) with regard to adopting technologies for managing social sustainability supply chains can be addressed by demonstrating commitment from senior management and implementing training and development programmes to develop employees’ knowledge and skills in this regard.

Governments and industry bodies have a pivotal role in accelerating technology adoption for social sustainability. Regulatory incentives, such as tax breaks and subsidies, can motivate firms, particularly in resource-constrained sectors like agriculture and textile manufacturing, to invest in sustainable technologies. In addition, industry-wide reporting standards for social sustainability can reduce fragmentation and improve consistency in sustainability evaluations, especially across global supply chains. Consumer awareness campaigns should be strengthened, especially in industries with direct consumer engagement, such as fashion and retail. Collaborative efforts to promote ethical sourcing and responsible consumption can enhance brand value and customer loyalty for firms that effectively communicate their sustainability efforts.

In summary, by recognising industry-specific barriers, leveraging the interdependencies among barriers and enablers and supporting tailored policy interventions, firms and industry stakeholders can better navigate the complexities involved in integrating technology into socially sustainable supply chains. Table 5 outlines additional strategies to overcome barriers to the adoption of technology in socially sustainable supply chain management.

The study comes with certain limitations. Firstly, the study is qualitative in nature with a sample size of 46 respondents across different industries. The study was meant to develop initial theories on supply chain social sustainability, and the findings are not intended for statistical generalisation. The findings offer analytical generalisation, providing insights that may be transferable to contexts with similar characteristics, including supply chain structures and sustainability challenges. Secondly, the studies rely upon a single point of data collection through a cause and effect relationship. Although this method is widely applicable in theory-building studies, data collected over several instances with responses in a longitudinal form may provide even better results. Finally, the study used data from a developed country. However, the results on social sustainability in supply chains obtained from this study may not be applicable to developing countries.

The study opens several important avenues for future researchers. At the firm, results pinpoint the essential role of government in promoting the technology adoption frameworks to contribute to socially sustainable supply chains. Future research should explore the explicit role played by the government in contributing to socially sustainable business practices. That is, how the government can support firms in different ways that encourage them to adopt technology, which will ultimately enhance social standards within the supply chain industry. Secondly, future research should delve into how industry/firms can bolster reporting practices and raise their benchmarks to ensure social sustainability practices. Thirdly, future research should explore whether integrating both blockchain and IoT can further streamline transparency, real-time visibility and monitoring of working conditions. Although this may come with heavy investment, but it is worth exploring whether the benefits associated with blending both technologies outweigh the costs associated with it. Fourthly, future research should delve into potential platforms that they can utilise to communicate/engage with internal and external stakeholders to address any discrepancies in cultural norms while adopting technology. In particular, the research should explore whether behaviour factors like trust building, loyalty and open and transparent communication can help stakeholders to understand the value/importance of technology and further align their social sustainability goals. Fifthly, future research could develop frameworks that map the interdependencies between barriers and enablers relationships across different supply chain roles using quantitative methods such as interpretive structural equation modelling. Finally, future research should explore how firms are currently investing in the capacity building of their employees to educate them about the importance of technology to streamline social practices. Specifically, how professional development programs can help employees understand the value of technology to streamline socially sustainable business practices.