Smell the Perfume: Can Blockchain Guarantee the Provenance of Key Product Ingredients in the Fragrance Industry?

Abstract

Although many studies have proclaimed the potential benefits of blockchain technology for supply chain traceability, there are very few examples of successfully scaled blockchain traceability solutions. Here, we examine the challenges in adopting blockchain-based traceability solutions using the case of a complex globally fragmented industry—the fragrance sector. Fragrances are used in a vast number of products. Leading brands make substantial claims about the origin, production methods, certifications and environmental and social sustainability of the fragrances in their products. We categorize the types of traceability-related claims made and examine the potential use of blockchain to support them. The industry exemplifies the challenges in ensuring supply chain traceability in globally dispersed supply chains. The research highlights the potential of blockchain-based traceability solutions but identifies four major challenges—bringing together supply chain partners for a blockchain initiative, disclosing and sharing more information than is common in buyer-supplier relationships, ensuring information encoded on a blockchain provides an accurate record of a product’s journey through the supply chain and involving parties such as regulatory and industry bodies in blockchain initiatives. The challenges identified are reflected in supply chains that are fragmented and globally dispersed, showing why the uptake of blockchain-based traceability has been limited in such sectors.

1. Introduction

Blockchain has emerged as an attractive option to support supply chain traceability. As a distributed ledger technology, blockchain can provide a digital record that is accessible across a dispersed network of suppliers. The information on the blockchain is cryptographically encoded, ensuring that the digital record is immutable, i.e., it cannot be tampered with or changed [1]. Blockchain offers advantages for traceability over conventional information systems that are centralized, partial, expensive to maintain and have many potential points of failure [2,3,4,5,6]. However, although many studies have proclaimed the potential benefits of blockchain for traceability, its application in practice has proved challenging in contemporary supply chains [7].

Blockchain pilot studies have been reported in some supply chain contexts but there is very little evidence of successfully scaled solutions for supply chain traceability in any sector [7,8]. Indeed, it is reported that some leading companies have withdrawn from seeking to apply blockchain in the supply chain [9]. In this study, we examine supply chain traceability in a sector that exemplifies the critical challenges that blockchain adoption faces in complex, fragmented and globally dispersed supply chains—the fragrance industry. Fragrances are used in a vast number of products, including many high-volume, fast-moving consumer and household goods with brands that are globally recognized [10,11]. The global fragrance industry is large, reflecting the diversity of uses of fragrance products. Its value is estimated at 50.8 billion USD and is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of 5.9% up to 2030 [12]. We examine whether blockchain can provide assurances to support the claims made by fragrance producers and leading brands that have traceability implications, such as claims about the origin of ingredients in their fragrance-containing products.

The market for environmentally friendly, sustainable and ethically produced consumer products, perfumes and cosmetics is increasing rapidly [13,14,15,16]. Many producers and brands make environmental, ethical and social responsibility claims related to the fragrance ingredients in their products [17,18]. For instance, Giorgio Armani’s luxury perfume, My Way Intense, makes 10 specific claims on the origin, purity and sustainability of the defining fragrance ingredients, including orange blossom from Egypt, sandalwood from New Caledonia and vanilla sourced from an NGO in Madagascar that supports the local community [19,20]. A specific Unilever dishwashing liquid states that the scent is made from 100% essential oils and botanical ingredients and meets the USDA certification for a biobased product, with 95% being made from renewable plant-based ingredients [21] (see Appendix A).

Effective supply chain traceability systems are needed to support such claims. Concerns about potentially false claims are being investigated by regulatory authorities in the UK [22]. The cosmetic supply chain transparency bill being considered by the US congress [23] requires all producers, including raw material and ingredient suppliers, formulating laboratories and product brands, to provide full ingredient disclosure lists and certificates of raw material analyses upon request [24]. However, each fragrance ingredient may have its own supply chain structure with globally dispersed suppliers, resulting in complex and fragmented supply networks that present very significant traceability challenges [25]. We conducted an exploratory study to examine whether blockchain can provide effective traceability in the fragrance sector.

We first analyzed and categorized the types of claims made by brands and manufacturers about fragrance ingredients in their products. We then conducted interviews with industry experts to examine the potential for blockchain-based assurances on product ingredients. We considered the potential benefits of blockchain-based traceability solutions but identified four major challenges that need to be overcome for blockchain adoption and deployment. The identified challenges have significant implications for blockchain traceability solutions in the fragrance supply chain, as well as other supply chains that are fragmented and globally distributed.

The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we review the relevant literature focusing on why blockchain is advocated for traceability solutions and discuss traceability in the fragrance sector, leading to our research questions. Section 3 describes the methodology underpinning the study. In Section 4, we analyze the traceability-related claims made by major brands and producers for products containing fragrances. In Section 5, we analyze and synthesize evidence from interviews with fragrance industry experts. Section 6 considers how blockchain traceability can be adopted but identifies and discusses four major challenges in developing a viable blockchain-based traceability solution based on our study. We highlight the wider implications of the study across many globally dispersed chains, noting avenues for further work.

2. Literature Review

Figure 1 shows an overview of the principal workflows in fragrance supply chains from raw material (RM) sourcing to final product delivery. The upstream fragrance supply chains, including raw materials (RM) sourcing, production and transportation, are complex and geographically dispersed. The downstream fragrance supply chains are also diverse, as the final fragrance products are used in a vast range of industries, including many consumer brands for household, health and beauty products.

The development of fragrances is a creative art supported by science. Expert perfumers create fragrances using their knowledge, skills and prior experience [10,26,27], collaborating with R&D teams to determine the most suitable active fragrance raw materials with the benefits and properties needed to meet specific customer requirements [11]. The new fragrance development processes involve many iterative and rigorous steps of ingredient selection, testing, evaluation and quality control before a final formulation is achieved [28]. A typical fragrance combines between 30 and 100 different raw materials to achieve the desired scent [11]. The raw materials may be sourced from chemical companies or natural ingredient suppliers from the agricultural and forestry sectors [11,25]. For natural ingredients, the industry plays a significant role in supporting employment globally in upstream value chains [29]. For example, Madagascar produces 70–80% of vanilla globally, providing around 70,000 jobs for farmers [30]. Both natural and synthetic fragrance ingredients go through multiple processing stages at globally dispersed locations before being combined in a fragrance. The supply chains for essential oils are fragmented with opaque supply chain configurations, including many small farmers, raising risks related to product quality, negative social practices [31] and environmental concerns [32,33].

The heightened awareness of risks in supply chains, along with the focus on environmental and social sustainability and increasing ESG reporting requirements, have magnified the need for more traceability in contemporary supply chains [34,35,36]. Counterfeit and copycat goods that damage brand reputations and raise safety concerns also require strong traceability capabilities [37,38,39]. Consumers are more concerned than previously about the environmental and social impacts of manufacturing and supply chains [36,40,41]. Companies and brands, therefore, seek to demonstrate their positive sustainability efforts and avoid accusations of greenwashing [42]. Effective supply chain traceability systems are needed to support such efforts. The wider fragrance industry ecosystem involves many stakeholders, including logistics and shipping companies, industry and government bodies and regulators. The industry has strict sourcing and manufacturing processes to ensure the quality of a fragrance and its raw materials [11]. The traceability and quality assurance of raw materials (RMs) are achieved through careful selection of suppliers and through auditing and certification processes [43,44,45]. However, such processes are costly, involve numerous parties and bodies (e.g., [43,44,45,46]) and suffer from critical disadvantages in providing assurance [47]. The data and information on procurement and sourcing are typically confidential to the producer. Such information may be disclosed only if a non-conformance occurs or if requested by a regulator or authorized third party. Assurance processes are not coordinated or curated at supply network level. Supply chain information is not usually made available to end-consumers.

Many claims are made by leading companies, producers and brands about the fragrance ingredients in their final products. Such claims can include specific information about the origin of materials and ingredients, working conditions at some stages of the supply chain [19] and ingredient certifications [21]. The amount and granularity of the information provided warrant further investigation, specifically because little is known about the verifiability of these claims or about the underpinning traceability systems that different companies in the fragrance sector use to support their claims and provide assurances to industry customers and end-consumers [48]. The industry is known to have high levels of secrecy in its supply chain and there is a pressing need for more visibility [49].

Many organizations struggle to establish effective product traceability systems [50]. Guaranteeing the traceability of raw materials presents substantial challenges for the fragrance industry, given the number and diversity of claims made by producers and brands. According to Sifferlin [51], only 18% of the claims made on commercial cosmetic products are trustworthy. Therefore, a better understanding of these claims is required to determine the traceability requirements for the fragrance-containing products. Taking the food sector as an exemplar, several studies discuss ingredient traceability claims, particularly in relation to health, consumer awareness and legal implications (e.g., [52,53,54]). Furthermore, a study on the pharmaceutical sector investigated new drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and categorized product labels by disease category [55]. However, no standard categorization of product claims has been found in the academic or practice literature that can be used to consider their traceability implications across the different sectors. Specifically, no schemes have been found to classify the claims made in the labelling of perfumes, toiletries, cosmetics or fragrance-containing household products that have traceability implications. Hence, in our first research question, we examine the range of claims made by fragrance product end-brands that have traceability implications:

RQ1: 

What types of claims do brand owners of products containing fragrances make about the fragrance ingredients in their products that have traceability implications?

Supply chain traceability is necessary to prove such claims [4,56]. Enabling traceability in the fragrance supply chain is crucial for organizations to support and verify their claims and meet increasingly stringent regulatory requirements [22,24]. The complex and fragmented nature of the fragrance industry’s supply chain structures raises the need to investigate new mechanisms for traceability [25]. Blockchain technology has gained prominence in the development of traceability systems across fragmented supply network structures [57]. Blockchain is a distributed ledger technology consisting of a digital record of transactions that are uniquely identified, timestamped and linked cryptographically in chronological order [1,58]. The use of cryptography supports the immutability of blockchain digital records [59], while the use of consensus mechanisms help ensure that the ledger status provides a single accurate source of truth [58].

Blockchain’s combination of technical features generate its unique core properties that support information traceability, transparency and immutability [1]. The choice of consensus mechanism and the governance model distinguish the different types of blockchain networks, characterized by the transaction validation process and the degree of accessibility and visibility given to network participants [60,61]. In public permissionless blockchains, all network nodes can be involved in the transaction validation process. Each network participant has read–write access to the blockchain ledger. In private permissioned blockchains, the network can be governed by a central authority and/or permissioned participants. Access to the network is permission-based and may be limited, depending on the governance mechanism adopted. Hybrid forms of blockchain networks exist. In particular, the consortium model may include features from both public permissionless and private permissioned blockchain models [8,61].

Blockchain applications in supply chains aim to address many traceability challenges. Typically, supply chain data and information are incomplete, located on disparate systems and spread across multiple supply chain parties [62,63]. The data may be inaccurate, lack verification or corroboration [64,65] or not conform to any standards. Product information from the supply chain may be hidden, lost, destroyed or become non-retrievable. Blockchain’s core capabilities have attracted many leading organizations to experiment with the technology to support product traceability in several sectors, including the automotive [66,67], aerospace [68], pharmaceutical [69], food and beverage [70,71,72] and textile and clothing [73,74,75] sectors. Blockchain-based traceability may enable organizations to allow end-consumers to access certain blockchain data, such as product provenance information, product composition information and product journeys across the supply chain [76,77]. The studies by Dionysis et al. [78] and Treiblmaier and Garaus [79] show the potentially positive impacts of blockchain on consumer purchasing intentions for traceable food products, although other studies show that consumers value USDA certifications over blockchain traceability in the United States beef supply chain [80].

Notwithstanding its potential, the use of blockchain in the supply chain is far from simple due to the inherent complexity of supply chain ecosystems, particularly multi-stage supply chains that are globally fragmented with multiple stakeholders [81,82]. This has resulted in few blockchain solutions being implemented at scale [7,82] and well-known examples being either withdrawn or failing to move beyond the pilot stage [9,83]. The lack of adoption at scale highlights the need for more research to provide an understanding on the challenges that blockchain traceability systems face in practice [57,84], with a particular focus on each sector’s characteristics [7]. Here, we examine the fragrance industry, a sector with a pressing need for traceability but very limited blockchain research and experimentation [85,86], leading to our second and third research questions:

RQ2: 

What are the opportunities for and the challenges to blockchain adoption and deployment for traceability in the fragrance sector?

RQ3: 

How can blockchain support the assurances companies make about the fragrance ingredients used in their products?

3. Methods

Using a sample of current fragrance containing products, we first conducted an objective analysis of the claims that producers and brands make about the origin; production methods; quality; certifications; ingredient sourcing; and environmental, ethical, and social responsibility of the fragrance ingredients in their products (RQ1). Then, detailed interviews were conducted with knowledgeable experts from the fragrance and FMCG industries to examine the potential usefulness of blockchain in the fragrance supply chain and the anticipated challenges of implementing the technology in this sector (RQ2). The findings from the claims analysis and expert interviews were further analyzed by the research team using their blockchain expertise to derive specific insights about blockchain’s implementation in the fragrance sector (RQ3) and its major challenges.

3.1. Analysis of Traceability-Related Claims Made by Brands and Manufacturers of Fragrance Products

To the best of our knowledge, no schemes are presented in the literature to classify the traceability-related claims made by producers and brands in the labelling of perfumes, toiletries, cosmetics or fragrance-containing household products. We, therefore, adopted an inductive, iterative approach to examine such claims about products containing fragrances. We used publicly available product information (e.g., labels and packaging) and partitioned the claims into categories. A set of current fragrance-containing products from major brand owners was selected by a fragrance industry expert as a typical representative sample and the claims were analyzed for each product. The sample comprised 23 products (14 perfumes and fine fragrances and 9 household and consumer goods products). Each product makes substantive claims regarding the fragrance ingredients (see Appendix A for the full list of products and the claims made on each). The products were selected from prominent brands, where the claims were related to the traceability and sustainability of fragrance ingredients. The sample was not exhaustive but included many globally recognized brands and popular products, making it valuable in illustrating the types of claims made.

Only a few products in the sample make a direct claim that the product or its ingredients are traceable. However, all the products make claims that have traceability implications (e.g., a claim about an ingredient’s origin). The inductive, iterative approach identified 11 distinct types of claims with traceability implications, which we define in

Table 1. Analysis scheme for fragrance-related claims with traceability implications.

Claim Category	Meaning
Origin/Provenance (O)	Guaranteeing a specific geographical origin, country, city/urban area, region or location for the product’s source or any constituent element’s source, e.g., vanilla from Madagascar.
Authenticity (A) 1	Assurance that the product has been produced (and distributed) by the labelled brand/manufacturer/vendor/retailer, e.g., a genuine branded product from Brand X.
Material (M)	The product contains a specific ingredient or a proportion of a specific ingredient within it, e.g., contains natural vanilla.
Quality (Q)	The properties or the ingredient(s) in the product or the properties of the product meet specific quality standards or have specific quality attributes, e.g., 100% natural perfume.
Upcycling (U)	Use of another industry’s waste to generate valuable fragrance ingredients used in the product, e.g., upcycled cedarwood atlas.
Processing (P)	The product or its ingredient(s) have been produced or manufactured in a specific way, e.g., alcohol distilled from natural beets.
Classified or Certified (C)	The product falls into a defined category of product or is certified, accredited, verified by another agency, e.g., certified vegan product.
Traceable (T)	Assurance that the origin of the product can be identified and checked, e.g., a specific natural ingredient is traceable.
Environmental Sustainability (SE)	A specific claim that the product or its ingredient(s) or manufacturing and production methods are sustainable environmentally, e.g., minimal impact on the environment.
Social/Ethical Sustainability (SS)	A specific claim that the product or its ingredient(s) or manufacturing and production methods generate social benefits or meet ethical standards, e.g., ensuring good working conditions.
Economic Sustainability (SM)	A specific claim that the product or its ingredient(s) or manufacturing and production methods generate economic benefits for those involved in the supply chain or the region from which it comes, e.g., creating local employment.

¹ See Section 4.

. We identified three types of sustainability claims using the triple bottom line (TBL) approach, which distinguishes environmental, social or ethical and economic forms of sustainability [87]. Upcycling involves the use of another industry’s waste as a fragrance ingredient. Although the re-use of a material has clear environmental sustainability benefits, we identify it separately, as it has become a major theme in parts of the industry [88].

The claims made for each of the products in the sample were reviewed independently by two of the authors and their judgements were compared. In general, the claims are explicit and unambiguous. For specific technical claims, the judgement of the industry expert was used to inform the analysis. We present the results of the analysis of the claims in Section 4.

3.2. Expert Interviews

3.2.1. Selection of Interview Respondents

The fragrance industry is noted for its very high levels of secrecy [49]. Obtaining an appropriate and willing sample of participants is challenging in such an industry. We sought fragrance industry experts that had detailed knowledge on sourcing, certifications, product guarantees, supply chain and quality management in the sector. LinkedIn profiles and professional connections with industry peers of one of the authors helped to identify suitable participants. The interviewees were selected based on their relevant expertise and experience (current and/or previous) and the nature and level of their positions held. The participants were purposefully selected from relevant parts of the fragrance industry to capture multi-angle views and a range of perspectives. The sample size in qualitative research is contextual and depends on the study domain. Five interviewees were selected based on their professional experience and willingness to provide information.

Table 2. Professional background of interviewees and mode of interview.

Interviewee	Current Role	Previous Industries	Total Years of Work Experience	Knowledge on RM Fragrance Sourcing and Traceability Challenges	Mode of 1st Interview and Length	Mode of Follow-Up Interview(s)
Interviewee 1	Head of R&D. Role: The development of raw materials and RM/ingredient sourcing for the FMCG and cosmetics industries.	Fragrance and FMCG	32 years	Currently working in the raw materials industry, supporting customers with provenance, sustainability and ethical claims.	Face to face for 1 h	Face to face + online
Interviewee 2	Head of quality assurance. Role: Quality assurance of fragrances, raw materials and suppliers.	Fragrance and beverages	33 years	Actively involved in sourcing, quality control and quality assurance of fragrance Raw Materials.	Face to face for 1 h	Face to face + online
Interviewee 3	Regional marketing manager. Role: Marketing fragrance solutions to customers in the region.	FMCG and Fragrance	11 years	Promoting the importance of sustainability, ethical sourcing, and provenance assurance to customers.	Online for 45 min	Online
Interviewee 4	Regional R&D director Role: Fragrance R&D and raw material sourcing.	Fragrance and FMCG	26 years	Strong knowledge on fragrance RMs and associated sourcing, as well as traceability and sustainability. Set up raw materials crisis team to ensure sustained supply when faced with crisis situations.	Online for 1 h	Online
Interviewee 5	Senior manager Role: Consumer and product research.	Skin care and cosmetics	11 years	Actively involved in ensuring sustainability, ethical and provenance claims of FMCG and cosmetics products.	Face to face for 1 h	Face to face

describes the profiles and professional backgrounds and experience of the interviewees. All of the interviewees were in senior management positions in their organizations, providing an invaluable mix of profiles for this sector. The interviewees had good knowledge of the supply chains of fragrance RMs and final fragrance products. Some of the interviewees had significant work experience in both the fragrance and FMCG industries and some also in upstream raw materials. All had detailed technical knowledge of fragrance products. The selection process sought to have multi-angled perspectives from relevant industry experts. Despite the limited number, the unique expertise and experience of the interviewees in selecting and dealing with suppliers, understanding the challenges of supply chain management in the industry and the growing importance of assuring the traceability of raw materials enabled highly valuable insights relevant to the research aims to be gained.

3.2.2. Design of Semi-Structured Interviews

Interviews seek to obtain information, perspectives, insights and opinions from relevant interviewees on the research topic of interest through formal conversations between the interviewer (i.e., researcher) and interviewees (i.e., industry experts) [89]. We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews, which enable greater consistency in data analyses than completely unstructured interviews and afford greater clarity on complex topics than structured interviews [89]. In semi-structured interviews, the researcher can ask additional questions or replace some of the existing pre-set questions (common for all participants) based on the interviewee’s response and work experience. The interview questionnaire design process was informed by the claims analysis and aimed at gaining a greater understanding of the industry and the potential opportunities and challenges for blockchain use in the fragrance sector to support these claims. The interviews sought to understand:

• The importance of traceability and transparency in the fragrance supply chain, particularly related to product provenance or origin, ethical or responsible sourcing and sustainability.
• The major complexities or issues that arise in the context of traceability and transparency related to product provenance or origin, sustainability and ethical or responsible sourcing.
• The potential usefulness of blockchain technology in the fragrance industry supply chain for traceability and transparency on provenance or origin, sustainability and ethical or responsible sourcing.
• Whether the implementation of blockchain technology can improve on existing weaknesses and strengthen current fragrance industry supply chain processes.
• The type of blockchain (i.e., private, consortium or public) that may be most suitable for the fragrance industry.
• Whether final customers will trust or value blockchain-enabled transparency and traceability assurances more than certificates issued by fragrance companies, RM suppliers or certifying agencies.
• Whether blockchain technology should be viewed as an addition to existing information systems or a complete disruption.
• The challenges and obstacles that may be experienced by a fragrance company seeking to implement blockchain technology.

The question topics were designed to utilize the interviewees’ knowledge and expertise in the industry and their opinions on how claims are supported by fragrance houses or fragrance RMs companies, the complexities and weaknesses in current supply chains in supporting claims and opinions or concerns on the implementation of blockchain across this industry’s supply networks.

The clarity and validity of the interview questions were first assessed by a preliminary interview with an R&D director with a very senior position in a major fragrance company who had worked in 3 of the top fragrance companies in different roles, as well as having prior experience in a major multinational FMCG company. The interviewee is currently leading activities related to provenance, sustainability and ethical claims made by the fragrance company and their RM suppliers and actively involved in RM sourcing. The comments from the pilot interviewee were considered in revising the final interview questions for clarity and precision. The pilot interviewee also participated in the sample of experts. The final questionnaire contained 10 sequentially structured open-ended questions. In conducting the semi-structured interviews, guiding and probing questions were also asked depending on the interviewee’s responses and work experience. Additional personalized or customized questions were asked but were targeted to maintain alignment with the research focus. The interview and data collection process complied with an appropriate research ethics protocol.

Following the selection and agreement of the interviewees, the interview questions (together with background information and an ethics statement) were sent by email in advance to allow the respondents to consider their responses before the interview, helping to enrich the discussion. Formal semi-structured interviews were then arranged, either online or in person. An overview of blockchain’s capabilities was provided for the interviewees. Table 2 shows the nature and length of each interview engagement. After the interview, the responses were documented and sent to the interviewees individually to verify their responses. The length of the follow-up period varied depending on the clarification needed.

4. Analysis of Traceability-Related Claims on Fragrance Products and Raw Materials

We analyzed the claims for the sample of 23 products listed in Appendix A using the classification scheme presented in Table 1. The motivations of the brand owners in making these claims or the legal implications of using specific labels were not our focus in this study. We focused on the traceability implications of the claims made. We first present the results and then discuss the implications.

Table 3. Summary analysis of traceability-related claims made by brands and producers on fragrance ingredients in their products (see Table 1 and Appendix A). C—classified or certified product; M—material; O—origin; Q—quality; U—upcycling; P—processing; S—Sustainable; SE—sustainable environmental; SM—sustainable economic; SS—sustainable social or ethical; T—traceable; STOT—total number of sustainability claims (i.e., U + SE + SS + SM).

CLAIM	O	M	Q	U	P	C	T	SE	SS	SM	STOT
Perfumes and fine fragrances 14	19	45	13	11	16	14	4	14	12	3	40	Total ingredient claims	58
Average claims per product 4.2	1.4	3.2	0.9	0.8	1.1	1.0	0.3	1.0	0.9	0.2	2.9	Average claims per ingredient	2.6
Household products and consumer goods 9	23	34	6	0	5	2	0	5	3	0	8	Total ingredient claims	36
Average claims per product 4.0	2.6	3.8	0.7	0	0.6	0.2	0	0.6	0.3	0	0.9	Average claims per ingredient	2.2
Overall 23	42	79	19	11	21	16	4	19	15	3	48	Total ingredient claims	94
Average claims per product 4.1	1.8	3.4	0.8	0.5	0.9	0.7	0.2	0.8	0.7	0.1	2.1	Average claims per ingredient	2.4

summarizes the analysis of claims. A fragrance ingredient may have more than one claim, so we recorded all claims made. General claims on ingredient authenticity were not evident on any of the labels or packaging analyzed. However, the category was kept in the analysis schema from earlier iterations as its absence is potentially interesting for other researchers.

On average, more than 4 ingredient claims were made per product across the full sample, with more than 2 claims being made per named ingredient. The presence of specific materials was recorded on average more than 3 times per product. Specific sustainability claims were strongly evident. We also counted the total number of specific sustainability claims identified (including upcycling), which we label as STOT in Table 3. The STOT exceeds 2 per product on average. The origin, quality, processing, certification, environmental and social sustainability claims approach or exceed 1 per product. The analysis shows that some claims are strongly coupled per ingredient, e.g., a claim that a product contains a specific material is combined with a claim that the ingredient originates from a specific country or region (see Appendix A).

For both product categories, the product origin and inclusion of specific materials are the most frequent types of claims made. More claims are made stating classified or certified products or ingredients for perfumes (14 claims) than consumer goods products (2 claims). Claims about upcycling are evident only in perfumes. Environmental and social sustainability claims are evident in both categories, while economic sustainability is evident only in perfume fragrances. The number of claims per product varies, showing differences in the efforts made by organizations to provide information about their products. Perfumes have a higher number of claims per product than consumer and household products. The higher relative price and perceived value of perfumes compared to consumer goods may spur organizations to provide more assurances to consumers.

Although the specific claims on traceability are few (only 4 noted), all claims have implications for supply chain traceability in the fragrance industry. Origin verification requires accurate supply chain traceability, given the inherent complexity and fragmentation of fragrance supply chains and the potential for product mixing in upstream production processes. For example, for L’interdit Eau De Parfum Rouge, Givenchy states that “Sandalwood comes from a company in New Caledonia which uses water distillation to extract oil, promotes local employment and takes part in reforestation projects” [90,91]. This detailed claim implies traceability is possible back to the original source, but the consumer is unaware of any other aspects of the journey across the rest of the supply chain of this ingredient. A claim that a product contains a specific ingredient such as natural vanilla requires verification that a natural vanilla supplier was used. Claims on specific quality and processing attributes also require transparent information on specific supply chain operations that can support the claims. Certification claims such as ‘EWG-verified’ for Henry Rose perfume [92], ‘USDA-certified’ for Seventh Generation dishwashing liquid [21] and ‘For Life-certified’ for the vetiver used in Phantom perfume [93] play an important role in promoting, assuring and communicating that good practices are maintained across the supply chain. However, limited information may be available about the certification process. Most certifications are validated infrequently and only for specific product or process parameters, which may limit the value of their assurances. Sustainability claims, whether environmental, social or economic, require transparent and accessible evidence from upstream supply chain operations to support the validity of the claims made.

The analysis illustrates the range and scale of traceability-related claims made on fragrance ingredients in branded products for a typical sample of contemporary products. The sample is not exhaustive but includes many globally recognized brands and popular products, making it valuable in illustrating the types of claims made. Such claims may influence consumer purchase decisions, adding value to specific brands by distinguishing them from other products in the mind of the consumer and enhancing the purchasing experience [94]. However, our focus here is on whether blockchain-based traceability can help in providing evidence to support the claims made, i.e., that they are accurate and can be substantiated. An immutable blockchain-enabled traceability system may be beneficial to verify claims, supporting raw material suppliers, fragrance producers, product manufacturers and brands, as well as end-consumers. We examine whether blockchain can provide such assurances, addressing RQ2 in the following section and RQ3 in Section 6.

5. Analysis of Interview Responses

Detailed insights were provided by respondents on the importance of ingredient traceability and transparency in the fragrance sector and blockchain’s potential to address these critical issues. The responses show both commonality and differences in perspective, with different examples highlighted on many of the themes studied. In the following sections, we summarize the abbreviated responses in tables showing the relevant interviewee (Int.). We synthesize the insights and perspectives in the subsequent text.

5.1. Importance of Supply Chain Traceability, Transparency, Provenance, Ethical Sourcing, Authenticity and Sustainability in the Fragrance Industry

The responses on these issues are summarized in

Table 4. Supply chain traceability, transparency, provenance, ethical sourcing, authenticity and sustainability.

Topic

Summary of Evidence

Importance of traceability, transparency, provenance, ethical sourcing, authenticity and sustainability

Sustainability is important to ensure the industry moves away from black-carbon-based to more renewable and green-carbon-based ingredients. [Int. 4] The origin is important to ensure the fragrance industry is tapping into indigenous resources and for brands to derive unique sourcing stories. [Int. 4] The ethical or responsible sourcing of natural RMs is important to ensure the sourcing companies play their part in community welfare and natural biodiversity protection (aligned with the UN SDGs). [Int. 4] Authenticity is critical to ensure that the products using the fragrance remain safe for consumers. [Int. 4] Effective traceability systems can ensure defective products are quickly traced and eliminated, preventing product recalls. [Int. 2] Growing end-consumer 1 demands for information on products and ingredients. [Int. all] Today’s consumers are more conscious and demand more information or assurances on sustainability, ethical or responsible sourcing (e.g., no child labor, no deforestation, no exploitation), authenticity, traceability and transparency. [Int. 1, 2, 3, 5] Millennials and Gen Zs are demanding eco-friendliness and sustainability, which manufacturers cannot afford to ignore. [Int. 3] Today’s consumers feel more responsible than before about their consumption. [Int. 1] Transparency is becoming key for consumers to make a knowledgeable choice on products. [Int. 4] More industry customers are demanding fragrances supported by sustainability claims such as biodegradable, renewable or nature-derived, natural and safer chemicals, which require traceability to ensure RMs are sourced correctly and sustainably. [Int. 4] End-product manufacturers (e.g., FMCG) are passing on consumer demands to their fragrance suppliers and RM manufacturers. [Int. 3] These factors are important in the industry to ensure the chain’s continuity, as the FMCG industry is always consumer-driven. [Int. 2, 5] These factors provide an edge to fragrance houses in retaining bigger clients (aligned with clients’ consumer demands) and may generate new customers. [Int. 3] Supply chain traceability is important in measuring sustainability. [Int. 2] Traceability and transparency in the supply chain provide valid proof of the sources of ingredients and authenticity of some key fragrance ingredients, especially those that are very expensive and claimed to be exclusively sourced for “limited edition” versions of products. [Int. 5] Some felt these issues to be equally important and interlinked [Int. 2, 5], while others felt their importance varies depending on the product [Int. 3].

¹ We use the term ‘customer’ to refer to industry customers, typically large FMCG producers and luxury perfume brands, and use ‘consumer’ to refer to the final purchaser of a product.

below. There was strong agreement on the increasing importance of ingredient origin, traceability and transparency and the need for more sustainable fragrance supply chains. All emphasized consumer demands for more information and assurances about product ingredients. Perfume and FMCG brands are consumer-driven and aware of the importance of provenance, traceability and transparency to provide evidence on the chain of custody of products and their ingredients. More and more customers are demanding fragrances supported by sustainability claims such as ‘biodegradable’, ‘renewable’, ‘nature-derived’, ‘natural’ and ‘safer chemicals’. Major brands and FMCG companies (e.g., Unilever, Procter & Gamble) pass on these demands to their fragrance suppliers. Suppliers, manufacturers and fragrance houses cannot afford to ignore these issues.

Effective traceability systems can support guarantees for key fragrance ingredients, especially for expensive, exclusively sourced ingredients and “limited edition” products. In addition to quality, traceability and transparency can provide assurances on the eco-friendly and ethical dimensions of production processes. Effective traceability systems can also help ensure defective products are traced quickly and removed to protect the safety of the consumer and avoid major recalls. Traceability and transparency may provide a competitive edge to fragrance companies that seek to retain larger clients if they align their sourcing processes with end-consumer demands. Knowledge on provenance is important, allowing the industry to tap into indigenous resources, from which brands can derive unique sourcing stories.

The responsible sourcing of natural RMs is gaining prominence, ensuring sourcing companies play their part in community welfare and in enhancing natural biodiversity in alignment with the UN SDGs. Achieving traceability may help in assessing and measuring sustainability. Different opinions were expressed on the relative importance of ensuring the origin, ethical and responsible sourcing and sustainability. Some felt these issues to be equally important and interlinked, while others felt their importance varies depending on the product type. There was agreement that fragrance suppliers have a major responsibility to provide valid proof of the sources of ingredients and demonstrate they are sourced responsibly and sustainably.

5.2. Major Traceability and Transparency Challenges in the Fragrance Sector and the Potential Usefulness and Application of Blockchain Technology Solutions to Address Them

The responses on these issues are summarized in

Table 5. Traceability and transparency challenges and blockchain technology as a solution.

Topic	Summary of Evidence
Major traceability and transparency challenges in the fragrance industry	No appropriate value chain model exists to define the standards and practices (e.g., definition of responsible sourcing) that the industry should follow. [Int. 1] Lack of education and awareness on this subject across globally distributed supply networks. [Int. 2] Strong collaboration is needed among the stakeholders to successfully implement traceability and transparency initiatives. Stakeholders need to adhere to their commitments at each stage. [Int. 2] By focusing on traceability and transparency, fragrance companies may develop a dependency on a limited number of suppliers for natural or eco-friendly and ethically sourced RMs, affecting their costs. [Int. 3] A lack of ability to provide end-to-end traceability and transparency. Various claims made by RM suppliers are self-regulated, questioning the authenticity of data because of conflicts of interest. [Int. 3] Challenging to convince RM suppliers to implement systems to provide traceability and transparency. There could be potential resistance from the companies that are currently not sourcing responsibly. [Int. 5] There is complexity in the sustainable sourcing of RMs. [Int. 4] There is no effective way to ensure suppliers’ adherence to the guidelines. [Int. 4]
Potential usefulness of blockchain technology in the industry’s supply chain	Provides one version of truth if the scope is clearly defined at the outset. [Int. 1] It could have more acceptance among stakeholders due to wider transparency. [Int. 2] It is useful as it is secure, digital and easy to use. [Int. 2] It can provide proof of the provenance or origin, authenticity, sustainability and ethical or responsible sourcing of RMs. [Int. 3] Implementation would ensure the fragrance industry can achieve effective traceability without numerous manual steps. [Int. 4] The technology will provide a record of the source of RMs and how they have been collected or created. [Int. 3] May open new opportunities as the entire end-to-end supply chain can be linked through blockchain, providing a step change for the future of supply chain traceability. [Int. 5]
Weaknesses of the fragrance supply chain that can be improved by blockchain technology	A lack of traceability (or accurate traceability) across the value chain is a major weakness that can be improved, especially given the large numbers of RMs and suppliers used [Int. 1, 3, 4] Authenticity is a weakness of the current supply chain process. Blockchain can provide evidential support to check a product’s authenticity, which would have acceptance among stakeholders. [Int. 2, 3] Can help to calculate carbon footprints accurately for each RM, which will be critical in the near future. [Int. 4] Can provide proof of origin of RMs. Consumers typically do not have any idea about the source or manufacturing location of the RMs present in their products. [Int. 5]
Greatest potential strengths of blockchain technology	Provides transparency depending on the data collected. [Int. 1] The greatest strength is its traceability function. [Int. 4] Avoids dishonesty in data sharing, as one organization cannot control the record. [Int. 3] It can provide information on the environmental footprint of a product, starting from the source. [Int. 4] The major strengths are the end-to-end linkage, prevention of counterfeiting, easy verification of the authenticity of the products and RMs and trustworthy data. [Int. 5] Consumers could follow the entire lifecycle of a product with trustworthy data, creating a transparent culture and more options for the consumers to be educated and make their choices. [Int. 2]

below. A range of perspectives were evident about the major challenges and complexities in achieving traceability and transparency in the fragrance industry. The absence of appropriate standards and practices was highlighted, e.g., in areas such as responsible sourcing, as well as the lack of education and awareness on the subject across many globally distributed suppliers. Strong collaborations are vital to successfully implement traceability and transparency initiatives. All stakeholders need to adhere to their commitments at each supply chain stage for a sustainable traceability solution.

The ability of suppliers to provide end-to-end traceability and transparency to support the claims brands make was questioned. Currently, such reporting is self-regulated. The accuracy of data may be in doubt because of conflicts of interest. Ensuring suppliers adhere to the guidelines necessary to meet the criteria for various RMs is challenging. Some fragrance RM suppliers are neither widespread nor numerous and most fragrance houses rely on a limited number of suppliers for some sets of RMs, particularly for natural, eco-friendly and ethically sourced ingredients. However, for other ingredients, the RM suppliers are more numerous. By focusing on traceability and transparency, a fragrance house may become locked-in to specific suppliers, which may affect costs. The current emphasis in sourcing and procurement is primarily on ensuring RMs reach manufacturing sites on time with consistent quality at competitive costs. Against this backdrop, it is challenging to convince RM suppliers to implement systems to provide traceability and transparency. There could be resistance from companies that may not currently be sourcing responsibly or that have limited knowledge about their upstream suppliers.

There was strong agreement that blockchain technology’s attributes could potentially address many weaknesses and challenges in current raw material traceability systems in the sector. The major potential strengths noted were its end-to-end linkage, prevention of counterfeits, easy verification of the authenticity of the products or RMs and provision of trustworthy data. The technology can provide one version of the truth and a verified database not controlled by a single party. However, the scope of the blockchain system needs to be clearly defined at the outset to support one version of the truth. The use of blockchain can provide improved transparency and evidential support to identify the provenance and assure the ingredients’ authenticity, which would have acceptance among a greater number of stakeholders.

Blockchain’s ability to provide trusted information on the entire lifecycle of a product is important, particularly environmental information to calculate the carbon footprint of RMs reliably, which is becoming critical information for many brands. This was especially the case given the challenges associated with the large number of RMs and RM suppliers used in many fragrance formulations. Providing a digital record of the sources of RMs, how the RMs have been collected and created and proof of their provenance and authenticity would be beneficial to all parties in supporting sustainable, ethical and responsible sourcing. Effective traceability could be achieved without having to go through numerous manual steps. This could be a step change for the industry with respect to supply chain traceability in the future, potentially opening new avenues if the entire end-to-end process of the supply chain is linked together through the use of blockchain. However, it should be noted that the ease of use and reduction in manual traceability activities would depend on how blockchain was implemented across the supply chain.

5.3. Industry and End-Consumer Trust in Blockchain-Enabled Traceability and Transparency

The responses on this issue are summarized in

Table 6. Industry and end-consumer trust in blockchain-enabled traceability and transparency.

Topic

Summary of Evidence

Customer and end-consumers’ trust in blockchain-enabled transparency and traceability

Blockchain will improve trust, as all stakeholders will look at one version of truth. [Int. 1] Blockchain will improve trust due to its verified database. [Int. 2] Blockchain will increase trust if it is developed by a neutral third party that has no interest in tampering with the data and the blockchain data cannot be changed by stakeholders. [Int. 3] Global companies are committed to sustainability, ethical sourcing and high levels of transparency, which implies easy access to information by consumers. This can be supported by blockchain rather than traditional certificates or documents issued by suppliers. [Int. 4] Digital data from blockchain may be more believed by today’s consumers than traditional methods. Consumers today are more digitally savvy, spending lots of time on social media and online platforms seeking information. [Int. 4] Consumers’ trust in blockchain-enabled transparency may take time, as they may not understand what blockchain is or how it helps them. Certifications are easier to understand. Blockchain data may be more valued and trusted by consumers of prestige or costly products. [Int. 5]

below. Most of the respondents believe that industry customers (e.g., FMCG, perfume and cosmetics companies) would trust blockchain-enabled traceability and transparency more than certificate-based guarantees provided by fragrance companies, RM suppliers or certifying agencies. The use of blockchain will lead to improved trust, as all relevant industry stakeholders could have access to the same verified digital trace. Large global companies are committing to sustainability, ethical sourcing and transparency on product labels and through advertising, media announcements and websites. Transparency is also becoming key for consumers to make knowledgeable choices on products, which can be supported by blockchain rather than the traditional methods of certificates or documents issued by suppliers.

End-consumers may be able to follow the entire lifecycle of a product with trusted data throughout, creating a transparency culture and enhancing consumer education. Today’s consumers are more digitally aware; digital data (e.g., blockchain data) are likely to be more believable than traditional sources if made available to the consumer. However, consumer trust in blockchain-enabled transparency may take time, as consumers may not understand what it is or how it helps them. Traditional certifications may be easier to understand. Blockchain-based assurances may be more valued for prestige or highly valued products. The use of blockchain could increase trust if maintained by a neutral third party with no conflicts of interest. However, this raises the issue of the type of blockchain that should be deployed.

5.4. The Type of Blockchain Solution Suitable for the Fragrance Industry and Relationship with Existing Systems

The responses on this issue are summarized in

Table 7. Type of blockchain and its relationship with existing systems.

Topic	Summary of Evidence
Type of blockchain suitable for the fragrance industry	Hybrid or consortium blockchain is more suitable for the fragrance industry. [Int. 1, 2, 3, 4] Brings all external stakeholders under one umbrella system, which will help smooth operations. [Int. 1, 4] Confirms authenticity and data protection as transactions are verified and distributed throughout consortium. [Int. 2] Lower cost and less chance of data manipulation than public type. [Int. 3] The consortium type retains critical benefits of both public and private blockchains. [Int. 3, 5] Type of blockchain may depend on the final products—public for expensive, premium, prestige or limited-edition products and privately controlled by relevant authorities for masstige or mass products to provide consumer assurance. Consortium blockchain should be appropriate for the industry, as it supplies fragrances for all categories of products. [Int. 5]
Blockchain as an addition to existing systems or a major disruption	Mixed responses—depends on the existing supply chain systems. o Begins as an addition to the existing supply chain system but eventually will completely migrate to blockchain. [Int. 1] o Could be an additional robust system on top of the current traceability or authenticity check systems. [Int. 2] o Could be a complete disruption as it completely changes the ways of working. [Int. 3, 5] Mixed responses—depends on the existing supply chain systems.∙ Will be a disruption requiring concerted efforts by the whole fragrance industry and its suppliers. [Int.4]

below. Most interviewees believe a hybrid or consortium blockchain type to be the most suitable, as it brings all external stakeholders under one umbrella, smoothing traceability system operations, especially when a fragrance company and its RM suppliers work as partners. The consortium model confirms the authenticity and data protection as the read–write permissions are controlled and transactions are verified by the participants and distributed with a degree of control across the consortium, avoiding any manipulation of data. The consortium model will enable a fragrance company to partner strongly with its RM suppliers and may be cost-effective in comparison to traditional traceability systems. However, it was also noted that the type of blockchain may depend on the final product. For example, full public access may be more suitable for expensive, premium, prestige or limited-edition products, while a private blockchain controlled by relevant authorities may be suitable for ‘masstige’ products (prestige or luxury for the population at large). Consortium blockchains may be appropriate as fragrance companies supply the whole spectrum from prestige or premium to mass-produced consumer products.

Different views were evident on whether blockchain technology would be an additional traceability system or a complete disruption, replacing existing systems. Some viewed blockchain as potentially providing an additional robust traceability system or thought that the technology might begin as an addition to existing supply chain systems but eventually traceability systems would migrate to being blockchain-based. However, it was also argued that blockchain could be a complete disruption, as it could fundamentally change the ways of working across the supply network. A concerted effort by the whole industry would be needed to embark on such an initiative.

5.5. Challenges in Implementing Blockchain Technology in the Fragrance Industry

The responses on this issue are summarized in

Table 8. Challenges in implementing blockchain.

Topic	Summary of Evidence
Challenges and obstacles to implement blockchain technology	The main complexity will be to manage largely unorganized sectors, particularly natural RM producers. [Int. 1] The most difficult challenge will be to convince and bring all associated RM suppliers on board as part of a blockchain consortium. [Int. 4] Resistance from small companies who may not currently be sourcing responsibly and may be hesitant in implementing these changes. [Int. 5] Cost will be a main challenge to implement and maintain blockchain. [Int. 3] On-boarding of IFRA committee or board will be critical in ensuring success of the project. [Int. 4] The challenges and obstacles are unknown due to the absence of blockchain system for fragrance-related materials. [Int. 2]
Negative effects of blockchain technology	The scalability of blockchain-based system is questionable. [Int. 1] Concern on the lack of data privacy for fragrance companies, as the industry still works on exclusivity. [Int. 4] Cost of blockchain implementation will be passed on to consumers (i.e., hike in product price), as high costs and resources are incurred to implement blockchain technology. [Int. 3] Costs may increase but blockchain provides additional benefits to the industry to prove the authenticity of the products. [Int. 5]
Collaboration opportunity or conflict with regulatory and legal authorities or systems	Collaboration is desired or required, especially with governments, legal authorities or systems and regulatory departments [Ints. 1, 3] Acceptance of blockchain by regulatory or legal authorities is not clear due to a lack of current implementation. [Int. 1] Collaboration efforts are possible with suppliers and IT companies without any legal or regulatory issues. [Int. 4]
Awareness of specific initiatives in this area	Not aware of any blockchain initiative in this industry. [all Ints.] Sustainability, ethical and provenance claims are usually self-regulated in the industry. [Int. 1] Awareness of some blockchain initiatives in other industries, including FMCG and finance industries. [Ints. 2, 3, 4]

below. Although the respondents were fully aware of a range of sustainability initiatives, programs and certifications in the sector, particularly those being led by major brands and FMCG companies, they did not believe there were any blockchain initiatives currently being undertaken within the fragrance industry, at a company or sector level, or initiated by regulators. Against this backdrop, the study sought insights on the potential challenges and obstacles for fragrance companies to implement blockchain technology.

The major highlighted challenges arise from initiating, coordinating and managing a blockchain initiative in a widely dispersed, fragmented and largely unorganized sector (e.g., farms that produce natural fragrance RMs). The sector has been largely self-regulated to date, and there is likely to be resistance to changing existing systems and adopting a new system. A significant challenge is, therefore, to convince and bring all the associated RM suppliers on board to engage in a blockchain consortium. There could be resistance from smaller companies that are currently not sourcing responsibly. They may be hesitant in implementing the changes necessary to adopt and implement the technology. There may be challenges in ensuring that the fragrance RM suppliers adhere to blockchain guidelines. Problematic issues of scalability and scope were noted, as a blockchain-based system can only be effective if the most important RM suppliers and intermediate ingredient producers or manufacturers are willing to participate and agree to adopt the technology. The desired scope needs to be clearly defined at the outset to provide one version of truth. Significant concerns relate to data privacy and confidentiality for fragrance companies participating in a consortium blockchain initiative. As noted, the industry is highly secretive, and many fragrance houses wish to protect their exclusive access to specific suppliers. This may limit their willingness to participate in a blockchain initiative.

The costs of the implementation and maintenance of a blockchain platform were also highlighted as further significant challenges and potential obstacles to the widescale adoption of the technology. Contrasting views were expressed on the cost implications. The cost would ultimately be passed on to the end-consumer, with potential price hikes for end products because of the extra resources that may need to be deployed to maintain the blockchain technology. In contrast, it was also argued that the value of the RMs and the resultant finished products would increase, potentially generating more revenue, as blockchain provides additional benefits to the industry and ultimately to end-consumers in proving the authenticity of products.

The importance of regulators, legal authorities and legal systems was noted strongly. They are critical stakeholders in ensuring the safety and authenticity of products in many jurisdictions. A range of views were expressed on whether there might be conflicts with regulatory or legal authorities and systems or collaboration opportunities to work with them. It was acknowledged that collaboration with regulators is desirable for successful adoption, although some were unsure of the acceptance of blockchain-enabled traceability technologies by regulatory authorities in different jurisdictions. Additionally, trade and industry bodies are also very important in encouraging and promoting the adoption of the technology. In particular, the role of the IFRA (International Fragrance Association) was noted as critical in ensuring the success of blockchain initiatives. The IFRA’s stated mission is ‘to represent the collective interests of the industry and promote the safe use and enjoyment of fragrances around the world.’ Collaboration efforts with relevant IT companies were also noted as likely to be essential. Collaboration with suppliers, IT companies, legal authorities and governments should be viewed as an opportunity for the successful implementation of blockchain. In addition to external collaboration with government agencies and legal authorities, internal collaboration with regulatory departments within firms may be important in gaining acceptance for the use of blockchain for traceability.

6. How Blockchain Can Support the Assurances Made on Fragrance Ingredients and Supply Chains

The findings from Section 4 show a diverse range of strong claims made by leading organizations in the fragrance sector that have traceability implications. The expert interviews (Section 5) provide valuable insights into the fragrance sector’s characteristics and the potential use and key challenges of blockchain use for traceability in the sector. Here, we first critically analyze the potential use of blockchain technology to enable traceability in the fragrance supply chain based on the research findings and our expertise in blockchain technology. We then highlight the significant challenges and necessary conditions evident for the adoption of the technology.

6.1. Practical Implications for Blockchain-Enabled Traceability in the Fragrance Industry

In addition to the principal supply chain actors undertaking value-adding activities, a blockchain network may comprise a wide range of partners from the industry ecosystem, including logistics providers, regulatory bodies, auditing companies and end-consumers. Based on the insights from expert interviews and the wider literature, we discuss the likely characteristics of blockchain-based traceability for the fragrance industry ecosystem.

Relevant type of blockchain network: As indicated in Section 5.4, a permissioned consortium type of blockchain solution is preferred to enable controlled collaboration on traceability among the parties in the ecosystem. Powerful players, i.e., the fragrance houses, final product manufacturers and brand owners, may view permissioned consortium blockchains as more beneficial than fully open systems because of the need to protect intellectual property and maintain commercial security, which were highlighted in the responses. A well-regulated blockchain consortium is important in developing effective solutions in different ecosystems [95].

Consortium membership: As indicated in Section 5.2 and Section 5.4, blockchain-based traceability requires a wide scope of inclusion across the supply chain consortium to be effective. Thus, the furthest upstream partners, including farmers, growers and forest owners from whom natural or organic RMs are procured, must be included to identify ingredient origins precisely and support sustainable and ethical practices from the point of origin. Intermediate producers and manufacturers are fundamental in accurately capturing the supply chain journey in the early value-adding stages before RMs enter the complex downstream product-specific supply chains. Downstream product manufacturers, including relevant FMCG companies and brands, need to be included so that a fragrance company can track the usage of its products and ensure only appropriate fragrances are used. Equally, brands need to be able to identify the authenticity, sustainability and ethical credentials of their fragrance suppliers in the network. Practically, the inclusion of logistics partners may be required to track the movement of products between value-adding stages across geographies and to capture carbon emissions data to support sustainability claims [96,97]. The decisions on which fragrance ingredients to target will influence the consortium’s membership, as will the presence of other stakeholders in the fragrance industry ecosystem (see Figure 2).

Permissions, access and visibility: Different levels of access and visibility rights can be assigned to network participants in a permissioned blockchain. Figure 3 illustrates a possible approach, reflecting the sentiments expressed in this study with respect to the protection of privacy and intellectual property. We stress that many variants are possible with respect to the scope, inclusion and access rights (e.g., [74]).

In addition to the fragrance company, full supply chain visibility and access may be available to major producers and brand owners to enable them to trace the provenance and help ensure sustainable practices across the supply chain. Restrictions may be needed to address concerns about unauthorized access, the release of commercially sensitive data and the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR). Other supply chain partners are likely to be granted more limited rights (e.g., one step downstream and one step upstream in their supply chain). They may have read, write or verification and validation permissions for relevant transactions only to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive information, e.g., logistics and transport companies are likely to require only limited “write” access.

End-consumer visibility: As noted in Section 5.3, giving end-consumers visibility for some data on a blockchain may engender trust. This is possible even in permissioned systems. Although brand owners or their supply chain partners typically do not offer visibility of supply chain information, some marketing advantages may be gained in providing at least limited access [98]. For instance, a brand may wish to instill confidence in the use of a particular raw fragrance material or tell a particular supply chain story for marketing purposes, as indicated in Section 5.1.

Even with limited access for some parties, blockchain-based traceability technologies may generate significant benefits. Key network participants can access and validate a single source of data on supply chain transactions, provenance and certifications. A transparent end-to-end supply chain system could strengthen trust among supply chain stakeholders. There could be a significant competitive advantage for networks that adopt blockchain technology. The use of blockchain may also generate operational benefits throughout the supply chain [5,7,8].

6.2. Challenges to Realize Blockchain Traceability Solutions in the Fragrance Industry

However, although positive sentiments were expressed by industry experts on the technology’s potential, formidable challenges were noted, with reservations on what is possible currently in a largely unorganized sector, particularly further upstream. We note four of the most pressing challenges evident from the study and their implications.

1. Forming a consortium: For the use of blockchain to be feasible, parties in the supply chain must agree to participate [95,99,100]. The initiators need to overcome the challenges of bringing the essential participants together under one umbrella (i.e., RM producers, RM suppliers and customers). Ultimately, powerful players may need to initiate and lead such a project, as they possess the capabilities and resources to bring a consortium together and overcome resistance to change.

Given the concerns noted, the larger, more powerful players may need to invest in and cover the costs of system deployment across a supply chain network until the benefits of deployment are evident to all. Extensive or full coverage may be too great, at least initially, so decisions on the scope of the traceability, the level of granularity targeted and which ingredients to include will need to be made at the consortium level. For instance, a major brand may initially wish to focus on supporting a specific fragrance claim through a blockchain application across the ingredient’s supply chain.

2. Changing attitudes and mindsets on information disclosure: Blockchain initiatives require new ways of working across a supply network in terms of data capture, recording and visibility. This may require a change of attitude for fragrance network participants that are used to traditional buyer–supplier relationships with limited information disclosure. They may need to agree to the more open disclosure of information to other parties in a network. The creation of permanent and immutable digital records of activities and transactions might be resisted. The powerful players driving a blockchain initiative are best positioned to both encourage new ways of working and reassure network participants of the benefits of creating a permanent digital record [101,102].

3. Validating platform data: Ensuring that the immutable digital trace is an accurate record of supply chain transactions and operations (the ‘Oracle problem’) is a challenging issue in information systems generally [103] and in blockchain particularly [104,105]. The validation, auditing and policing of recorded supply chain data are processes used extensively in quality systems [106]. The third-party auditing of information on the blockchain platform may still be required to ensure the digital record captures physical supply chain operations accurately [74]. In a permissioned blockchain system, network participants may over time gain trust in each other and in the information on the blockchain platform. IT blockchain platform providers may also play a role in maintaining a blockchain platform and designing control mechanisms to support access, data verification and data validation.

4. Wider ecosystem participation: Industry bodies and regulatory authorities are important entities in the fragrance industry ecosystem. Industry bodies can advise on best practices in areas such as traceability and encourage and promote engagement in wider industry initiatives. Regulators can be agents of change by stipulating the use of specific technologies for effective traceability systems or by advising against or not recognizing specific methods [95,107]. It is possible that regulators in some jurisdictions could ask for more definitive proof of claims made on fragrance products [23], which could provide an impetus for the use of a blockchain-based traceability platform.

The challenges arising in each of these four areas have the potential to inhibit the adoption of blockchain-based traceability in the fragrance industry. Positive progress in each area could pave the way for adoption. However, progress is not likely to occur unless more limited pilot projects are conducted in the fragrance industry that clearly demonstrate feasibility in practice, the benefits attainable and the scale-up challenges that broader adoption would entail.

7. Summary of Findings

The results reported in Section 4 address RQ1. They show the types of claims that producers and brand owners make about fragrance ingredients in their products. These include claims on the origin, production methods, quality, certifications, ingredient sourcing and environmental and social sustainability. The ability to trace the ingredient journey from origin to fragrance-containing product is a necessary requirement to verify the identified claims. This type of claim analysis has not been reported previously in the literature.

The applications of blockchain vary across sectors, stressing the importance of investigating the sectoral characteristics that may hinder or support the technology’s effective adoption and application [7,82]. The literature on blockchain implementation in the fragrance supply chain is scarce [85]. The industry is known to be highly secretive, with very limited visibility [49], stressing the need for more empirical research in this complex sector. The results reported in Section 5 address RQ2 on the opportunities for and challenges to blockchain adoption and deployment for traceability in the fragrance sector. The industry experts agreed that blockchain technology could help to overcome existing traceability challenges by providing an immutable and traceable digital record of supply chain data, supporting secure information sharing across fragmented supply networks. However, they were not aware of any significant blockchain initiatives or applications in the sector, notwithstanding the range of claims made by brand owners and manufacturers on fragrance ingredients, all of which have traceability implications. They highlighted the substantial challenges that could limit blockchain’s applicability, including initiating, coordinating and managing a blockchain initiative in a widely dispersed, fragmented and largely unorganized and self-regulated sector.

Section 6 addresses RQ3 on how blockchain can support the assurances companies make about the fragrance ingredients used in their products. Section 6.1 provides detailed insights on the fragrance supply chain and the key decisions that need to be made on the type of blockchain to deploy, consortium membership, permissions, access and visibility for blockchain data. Blockchain has the potential to support the numerous claims made but four major challenges are identified in Section 6.2 that need to be overcome to deploy a blockchain solution. The insights gained will have strong resonance for those supply chain contexts in which blockchain technology is being considered to support traceability-related claims made about the constituent ingredients in products.

8. Conclusions

Although much discussed, clear evidence of blockchain-based traceability solutions has been limited to date, with very few examples of scaled solutions that have been sustained. This study has wider relevance for supply chain contexts with similar characteristics, namely, large networks of globally dispersed suppliers. Blockchain traceability solutions will need to address each of the four major challenges identified—bringing together relevant supply chain actors to participate in a consortium and work in different ways, disclosing and sharing more information across a wider network than is common in many traditional supply relationships and addressing information accuracy issues to ensure an immutable digital trace that accurately reflects the operations and transactions that occurred across a product’s supply chain journey. The perspectives of regulatory authorities and industry bodies on the assurances provided by a blockchain-based traceability solution need to be considered.

Each challenge requires further research scrutiny if blockchain solutions are to be deployed successfully at scale for specific supply chain traceability contexts. Each challenge offers opportunities for further work. In particular, the third challenge, ensuring that the digital record captures physical operations accurately, has not been investigated in this work and requires further study. Blockchain is a rapidly developing technology and more studies of applications in different supply chain contexts will add to our understanding on its use for traceability.