Overview of CAS dynamics across phases
| CAS codes | Key themes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I – Preconditions and initiation | Phase 2 – Basic pilot trial | Phase 3 – Full pilot and launch | ||
| Internal mechanisms | Agents and schemata | Diverging interests and goals (schemata) across downstream, midstream, upstream supply chain | Upstream supplier initiates blockchain pilot with schematically-aligned actors Difficult to onboard midstream due to diverging schemata | Shared traceability schemata formalized in blockchain Shared sustainability schemata developed and formalized in stakeholder alliance’s sustainability standards |
| Self-organization and emergence | External pressure exerted on downstream sensed by upstream actor Upstream actor starts blockchain project to demonstrate traceability and sustainability | Blockchain pilot emerges between schematically-aligned actors Upstream actor exerts agency: includes competitors in pilot; starts stakeholder alliance to engage downstream | Full blockchain pilot, first battery passport implemented Distributed organization emerged yet remains volatile due to costs and practical challenges with blockchain Prior trust essential, but trust-building facilitated through blockchain pilot | |
| Connectivity | Complex, dynamic supply chain with low connectivity | – | Additional connectivity due to blockchain project and stakeholder alliance (“support supply chain”) | |
| Dimensionality | High dimensionality with autonomous actors and limited overarching control | – | – | |
| External environment | Visible horizon | Downstream faces visible horizon as a barrier to traceability and legal compliance | Upstream actor’s visible horizon restricts pilot | Upstream and downstream collaborate from both ends of supply chain to extend their visible horizons |
| Rugged landscape | Very rugged: low visibility and heterogenous conditions across landscape | Rugged landscape shapes which actors to involve in pilot Heterogenous on-the-ground conditions and infrastructure complicate pilot | Rugged landscape “hides” existing sustainability issues “Garbage-in-garbage-out” problem persists Midstream actors benefitting from lack of visibility | |
| Dynamism | Dynamic external environment (e.g. EUBR and HREDD laws, green transition and demand for critical minerals, tech progress with blockchain) | CAS-internally, blockchain more complicated to develop than expected, thus slower and more costly CAS-externally, geopolitical tension rising as Russia invades Ukraine, renewed urgency of green transition | Risk of uncovering emerging issues that actors did not know they had Blockchain’s immutability vs dynamic reality | |
| Co-evolution | Quasi-equilibrium | Quasi-equilibrium shaken by EUBR | In flux | Still in flux, but settling into quasi-equilibrium as traceability and compliance appear feasible |
| Non-linear changes | High hopes in blockchain technology as traceability/compliance panacea | In limbo: Uncertainty around blockchain’s economic impact (positive vs negative) | Blockchain as expensive and for high-risk contexts only; yet, high-risk status can change fast and non-linearly Volatile geopolitics persist | |
| Non-random future | EUBR incisive yet not unexpected | – | Regulatory compliance in sight, yet question of on-the-ground impact remains. New iteration likely Actors highlight need for systems thinking | |
| CAS codes | Key themes | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase I – Preconditions and initiation | Phase 2 – Basic pilot trial | Phase 3 – Full pilot and launch | ||
| Internal mechanisms | Agents and schemata | Diverging interests and goals (schemata) across downstream, midstream, upstream supply chain | Upstream supplier initiates blockchain pilot with schematically-aligned actors | Shared traceability schemata formalized in blockchain |
| Self-organization and emergence | External pressure exerted on downstream sensed by upstream actor | Blockchain pilot emerges between schematically-aligned actors | Full blockchain pilot, first battery passport implemented | |
| Connectivity | Complex, dynamic supply chain with low connectivity | – | Additional connectivity due to blockchain project and stakeholder alliance (“support supply chain”) | |
| Dimensionality | High dimensionality with autonomous actors and limited overarching control | – | – | |
| External environment | Visible horizon | Downstream faces visible horizon as a barrier to traceability and legal compliance | Upstream actor’s visible horizon restricts pilot | Upstream and downstream collaborate from both ends of supply chain to extend their visible horizons |
| Rugged landscape | Very rugged: low visibility and heterogenous conditions across landscape | Rugged landscape shapes which actors to involve in pilot | Rugged landscape “hides” existing sustainability issues | |
| Dynamism | Dynamic external environment (e.g. EUBR and HREDD laws, green transition and demand for critical minerals, tech progress with blockchain) | CAS-internally, blockchain more complicated to develop than expected, thus slower and more costly | Risk of uncovering emerging issues that actors did not know they had | |
| Co-evolution | Quasi-equilibrium | Quasi-equilibrium shaken by EUBR | In flux | Still in flux, but settling into quasi-equilibrium as traceability and compliance appear feasible |
| Non-linear changes | High hopes in blockchain technology as traceability/compliance panacea | In limbo: Uncertainty around blockchain’s economic impact (positive vs negative) | Blockchain as expensive and for high-risk contexts only; yet, high-risk status can change fast and non-linearly | |
| Non-random future | EUBR incisive yet not unexpected | – | Regulatory compliance in sight, yet question of on-the-ground impact remains. New iteration likely | |
Source(s): Authors’ own creation; extended tables available in Online Supplementary Material
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.