Roadmap for National Adoption of Blockchain Technology Towards Securing the Food System of Qatar

Abstract

The national adoption of any technology involves the tight cooperation between the government and the key players involved in the sector of significance. This study highlights a road map toward blockchain technology (BCT) adoption and how it can catalyze better collaboration between the national authorities who play a vital role in securing food systems. The study discusses novel organizational and management concepts to blockchain-based digital governance and lays the foundation for future research. The methodology involves a combination of a systematic review and field research with officials of Qatar’s Food Security Program. As a result of analysing the case of Qatar, this paper analyzes the key features of both the BCT and the national food security goals of Qatar and investigates the technology–strategy fit. The outcomes include a blockchain collaboration matrix, “Technology Adoption and Stakeholder Effect” Matrix, and mapping the national strategies of Qatar Food Security to the capabilities of blockchain technology. Finally, this work concludes by providing concrete suggestions to help facilitate blockchain adoption within the national IT infrastructure, for better traceability and transparency in the food system.

1. Introduction

The role of the national government in food security is indispensable to the healthy living and prosperity of a nation (refer Figure 1). This role is understated and is often considered irrelevant to investing in technology infrastructure. Formally, the term “governance” refers to a system of government in which private economic players and some segments of civil society participate in the formulation, administration, and execution of policies (Mayntz, 1998) [1]. Every neoteric food policy presupposes a robust and versatile technology infrastructure. This facility is then utilized in unveiling, surveilling, and evaluating the efficiency and sufficiency of the policy. African countries [2], Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden) [3], and some European nations (Luxembourg, Germany, and Estonia) [4] have governments who are recognized for their extensive adoption of technology in national food security governance. For example, as part of its strategic relationship with World Food Program, the Luxembourg government seeks to bolster progress towards zero hunger by adopting a common UN blockchain system, which will steer programs that engage the effectiveness of cash-based interventions (CBIs) and leverage food traceability [5]. Another illustrative instance is the visionary road map of the Ministry of Rural Affairs and the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation in Sweden, which aims to invest in technology, to foster food system collaboration, empower farmers, and ameliorate knowledge management within different stakeholders of the food system [6]. Whilst many interpretations of “food security” exist within different organizational settings, the widely accepted definition is that of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) in 1996 [7], (later modified in 2002 [8]).

“[Food security is] a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”

Food security is vital at a household, community, national, and global level. Although great strides have been made in this respect, there have been various organizational divergences and distortions of this primary vision. Ref. [9] highlighted that food security policies should focus on distributing and consuming food responsibly rather than on producing more food. Many have argued that there needs to be a new paradigm in the food security framework; moving from a government-centric force to a market-driven one [10] and creating a consumer culture that distances itself from a rule-bound, farmer-focused system to a choice-driven, sustainability-focused system, governed by public–private-partnerships [11]. The new fundamentals challenging the food system of a nation are as follows:

• Reducing waste in the intermediate supply chain [12];
• Increasing collaboration between various stakeholders [13];
• Managing the contractual procurement of food [14];
• Managing inventory by smoothing international customs [15,16];
• Bringing efficiency to the safety inspection and certification processes of players in the food system [17].

Although there have been many works on technological interventions and organizational strategy implementation, few have studied the organizational effects of adopting a technology at the national level towards food security. Adopting a technology at the national level requires the unperturbed acknowledgment of both “the plebians and the patricians”. This is achieved by the propitiating and pertinent role of government, who in many cases can influence and prompt the entire system of players. As depicted in Figure 1, in the case of food security, the government plays a mammoth role in maintaining the integrity of the food system by regulating safety measures, monitoring imports and exports, controlling inflation, and reprimanding and penalizing faulty or unlawful practices. The various bodies of the government—finance, domestic affairs, energy and transportation, public health, agriculture and municipality—work in tandem with private institutions to ensure that the nation has sufficient access and availability to nutritious food and to guarantee that the public distribution system is efficient and well equipped with buffer stocks should there be an unforeseen emergency. Towards the fulfillment of a sustainable and dynamic food system, the active participation and collaboration of the different entities within the food supply chain, both vertically and horizontally, is required. Only then can one ensure the complementary interaction of a top-down and bottom-up approaches to national food security.

1.1. Technology Infrastructure and Food Security

There are extrinsic factors that contribute to the amelioration of the food security strategies of a nation. These include technology, people, and organizational structure. A well-planned technological infrastructure is critical to the implementation proliferation of food security strategies. The technology should be resilient to shocks, easily integrate or diverge with existing practices, and above all, promote collaborative governance. In public organizations, the aim of collaborative governance is to involve stakeholders in co-creating concrete solutions to problems related to (food) policy and to provide innovation initiatives [18]. Much of the major technology adoption at the government level is undertaken in order to improve the quality of the services offered to the public, by reducing processing time and introducing more governmental services, so as to increase productivity and the decentralization of tasks. However, in the process of adopting such technologies, more barricades have thus evolved for the public to reach the government or, worse, for different departments within the government to communicate and sanction various procedures, practices, and protocols. This obstruction is further aggravated by the fact that such delays and inaccessibility will affect the food system and its players adversely, given the nature of their interactions, contracts, uncertainties, and the lifespan of the products itself. There is, therefore, a need for a technology that will facilitate the participation of all stakeholders (including citizens) to better communicate, transact, and participate in the food system, with varying degrees of privacy, total transparency, and automatically executable tasks and services. This work emphasizes that blockchain technology can intervene and integrate within the present food system practices to promote a higher standard of execution and a digital governance structure. One can concur that blockchain technology is a legitimate substitute or a pioneering leader that can contribute to the pillars of food security—availability, accessibility, and utilization.

Research Objectives

This study argues that blockchain technology can solve the aforementioned challenges and bring greater visibility to the food system and ensure the implementation of policies by enhancing governance, reducing human-induced errors, and providing a decision support system for the ecosystem. This study aims to ignite and inspire new investigations and technology interventions with blockchain technology, by laying down the foundational principles of adoption, diffusion, and collaboration. Though blockchain technology (BCT) is at its nascent stage of development, it holds immense potential for future of collaborations and transactions. Hence, to understand the nuances of this technology and its potential impacts on national organization, we propose to study it in the context of the national food security strategies of the nation of Qatar. This research presents a strategic framework for the adoption of blockchain technology to the three pillars of food security; namely, availability, accessibility, and utilization, and within the context of the National Food Security Program of Qatar. The key players and stakeholders that need to be considered when designing a framework for the adoption of blockchain technology include farmers, importers, distributors, retailers, manufacturers, waste management personnel, the government, and consumers. The scope of this study will be limited to the organizational and technology management between and within different public (government) agencies at the national level. This work will aim to answer three research questions (RQ).

• RQ 1: What will be the organizational impact of blockchain technology (BCT) adoption at a national level agency? We investigate how blockchains will impact the way stakeholders transact, interact, conduct business, and commit to contracts from a governance perspective.
• RQ 2: How BCT will differ from traditional forms of food system governance? This venture argues that in principle, blockchains will complement and in many cases efficiently smooth the operations of the key stakeholders;
• RQ 3: How to widen the horizon of discussion by developing a framework for the adoption of BCT within the Qatar National Food Security Program and the Qatar National Vision 2030? To accomplish this, our study will investigate the technology–strategy fit of the present infrastructure and provide a road map for the future.

This research ends by proposing future pathways for innovation, both from a technology management perspective and an organizational management perspective. In this manner, we seek to explore the very recent niche formed at the intersection of technology adoption and organizational collaboration.

The following section will outline the historical background and fundamental technical propositions of blockchain, which have important organizational implications for the end goal of collaboration and cooperation. This is demonstrated by appropriate literature surveys on blockchain-based procurement, safety inspection, and certifications, which can be viewed as a form of governance mechanism that is in stark contrast with traditional governance.

1.2. Background Concepts for Blockchain Technology

The notion of storing data in a read-only format in a distributed chain of blocks (nodes) has been around for quite some time. However, it was not until Nakamoto [19] that we obtained an actual application for recording decentralized financial transaction methods. Blockchains were initially seen as an alternative to financial transactions and were quickly associated with protocols such as Bitcoins, Ethereum, and Ripple. Blockchain-based decentralized transactions did not require intermediaries who kept ledgers of every account and transaction for tracing and verifying purposes. This mechanism made sure that institutions can solve the double spending problem—a digital token, unlike tangible cash, is made of a digital file that may be replicated or manipulated, hence making it necessary for intermediaries to be put in place to avoid fraudulent activities [20]. These intermediaries, although necessary, posed a massive threat to individual privacy, governance, and from hacking [21]. In 2008, Nakamoto claimed to have solved the “double spending” problem by employing a cryptographic process called mining, undermining the need for a centralized authority to monitor transactions [22]. The idea of storing records in a decentralized chain of ledgers whose reliability is proven by the consensus (algorithms) of the members of the ecosystem meant that “the best way to avoid fraud was to hide data in plain sight” [23].

The system also promised that trust can be earned by rewarding “miners” (nodes that verify the validity of a transaction and append valid blocks to the rest of the chain) with token incentives [24]. Such cryptographic validation processes require massive computational power and therefore make it logically insensible for a malevolent block to validate a faulty record and maintain the faulty version of the truth throughout the entirety of the chain [25]. Miners, thus maintain the integrity of the system and ensures that every block (of records) can be traced back to the genesis block (the first block back to which every other block can be traced) [26]. Not only did blockchain technology challenge the status quo of established institutions such as banks and exchanges but it facilitated the rise of decentralized apps (DApps), igniting the spark of Web3.0 technology.

Organizations might fall into the error of thinking that blockchains are just technologies for financial transactions. With any new technology in its infant stage, the inability to see beyond what meets the eye is quite natural. As with the early stages of the internet, blockchains are poised to transform all aspects of an organization. Blockchains have progressed beyond the Bitcoin movement and have found applications in various industries, including cyber-security, supply-chain management, the entertainment industry, and logistics services [27]. According to a recent report by CNBC [28], one of the world’s leading venture capitalists, Andreessen and Horowitz raised more than USD 2.2 billion dollars for the ‘a16z Crypto Fund’—structured as a separate venture fund for blockchain based startups, meaning it has a committed capital base and is expect to hold investments for 10 years or more [29]. This sums to more than USD 3 billion in assets under management (AUM), since its inception in 2017.

2. Industrial Applications of BCT in the Food System

To further demonstrate the uses of blockchains, we would like to give two examples from industry where distributed ledger technology was employed to solve real world problems. In early 2018, shipping giant Maersk and IBM formed a joint venture, and later that year they launched TradeLens, a blockchain platform for tracking shipments as they move from one port to another [30]. The platform enables real-time access to shipping data and documents and makes it easier for all stakeholders engaged in the supply chain, such as cargo owners, maritime and inland carriers, freight forwarders and logistics providers, ports and terminals, customs authorities, and financial service providers, to communicate more effectively [31]. Other examples include the document transfer platform CargoX, which facilitates document transferring services in a safe and secure manner. It also provides a mechanism to transfer the ownership of documents [32]. All freight forwarder related documents (such as the bill of lading) are uploaded to a blockchain-secured network. All information stored on the blockchain is visible to the public, but the content of the documents themselves are not accessible to everyone. This is because, rather than publishing the document, a hash (mathematical proof) of its submission is made available in the blockchain, thus avoiding privacy issues. Other ventures in this sector include Kuehne + Nagel, which handles hundreds of thousands of transactions per month with blockchain through the Verified Gross Mass portal [33]. In the shipping field, a blockchain-enabled operating system was created by the Global Shipping Business Network (GSBN), an independent, not-for-profit technological consortium, with the goal of redefining international trade. To speed up digital transformation in the international commerce sector, the GSBN blockchain platform, which was developed in collaboration with Oracle, Microsoft, AntChain, and Alibaba Cloud, has officially launched [34]. A growing network is often not an easy feat to manage. TradeLens, for instance, found it challenging early on to bring additional ocean carriers on board. The main issue was the position of Maersk—a competing carrier—as a partner in the joint venture that owns TradeLens. As of July 2019, 15 ocean carrier lines, representing more than half of the world’s ocean container cargo, had committed to the TradeLens platform.

2.1. Blockchains and the Food System

The information lodged on a blockchain can assist supply chain players in addressing a broad range of quality issues and increase consumers’ confidence in the quality of the food that they consume. Improved traceability could be especially beneficial in the event of an outbreak of a food-borne disease, as this could help investigators to quickly determine the source of the outbreak and issue a more targeted recall, to minimize food waste. Another example of a blockchain initiative in the food industry is the Food Trust platform, launched by IBM in late 2018, to connect retailers, wholesalers, and suppliers across the food ecosystem and provide greater traceability [35]. Around the world, there are many different types of food systems and agricultural techniques, from conventional food chains to contemporary large-scale distribution networks. As the system becomes more complex, its uncertainties, risks, and blind spots increase. This motivated the creation of the Food Trust platform. As of April 2019, more than 80 brands were participating in the Food Trust network, including Walmart, Kroger, Driscoll’s, Nestlé, and others [36]. Other examples include the food-tracing system introduced by Chinese retail giant Alibaba in April 2018 to provide end-to-end supply chain traceability for imported goods. This consortium, called the Food Trust Framework, includes Fonterra, New Zealand Post, Blackmores, and Australia Post, aims to fight food fraud and win consumer trust in the process [37]. On the other hand, the solution used by the Grass Roots Farmers’ Cooperative to boost consumer confidence in the quality and origins of the meat they purchase is also blockchain powered. The proposed solution involves customers scanning QR codes on chicken packages with their smartphones or tablets to obtain information on where and how the chickens were reared and harvested. This solution helped the farmers of Arkansas become the first in the United States of America to utilize blockchain technology, in partnership with Provenance, to trace poultry meat [38]. These and other examples illustrate the value of an immutable and decentralized database and the additional benefits that can be realized when combining this with IoT solutions. It has been established that blockchains fundamentally change the way we audit, verify, and aggregate various types of information [39]. These data are in the form of access permissions, certification tracking, voting (decision making), ownership, and incentives of various contracts and transactions. It has been well been established that blockchains are mechanisms used to increase cooperation and collaboration between entities for various works. This study borrows the definition of collaboration as “a co-operative alliance among organizations that reckon neither market nor hierarchical mechanisms of governance” [40]. Some of the characteristics of good collaboration are standardization of practices [41], knowledge sharing [42], and resource sharing [43]. In this work, we bring to light the fact that blockchains offer the necessary catalysts for cooperation through two of their inherent features: smart contracts and immutable provenance.

2.2. Blockchain Characteristics Used within the Food System

Smart Contracts. The emergence of automation in mundane operations of industry has transformed every industry in the 21st century. Often the drivers of automation are software-based solutions such as machine learning, artificial intelligence, or even a simple executable low-definition code. The arrival of smart contract-based automation promises in-built solutions that are not just for process automation, but also for security, transparency, and a low cost of application [44]. Once a smart contract is implemented on a blockchain, it will be carried out in accordance with predetermined guidelines and cannot be altered. Simply put, smart contracts are codes that are executed when a condition is triggered (such as an ownership change, location change, timing, or crossing a value threshold). Although Bitcoin is a smart contract by definition, the idea of smart contracts for various other applications was popularized by the Ethereum blockchain framework. These “if-else” conditions are triggered by data or events that are stored in “oracles”, which are non-blockchain sources of digital information that convert outside occurrences into information that can be accessed by smart contracts [45]. It is this feature of blockchains that enables them to be well-suited for enacting agreements and tracking data, even when the decision-makers are within different organizations. The deployment of smart contracts for mutual control has the potential to reduce unanticipated complexity in areas that are already complicated, such as the food and energy systems. Smart contracts can achieve machine-based automation amongst different parties by employing machine-based consensus systems (algorithms). These algorithms range from proof-of-work to many other types (the most recent and promising one being proof-of-stake), with a wide range of research ongoing in the field of cryptography and information security [46,47].

Immutable Provenance. When information is shared across a supply chain, a joint consensus has to be made, in order to maintain one true record of the “state” of the system. This state is kept in a centralized system by a centralized authority. However, in a multi-organizational collaborative environment, this centralized system of repository is outsourced to a third party that is “trustworthy” for all the partners. Although documents and transaction bills can be traced back, often this leads to the high cost of paying (third party) an agency, unwarranted delays in contractual agreements, proneness to cyber-attacks, and a strenuous auditing procedure. In contrast to this, blockchains allow complete historical information to be accessed by anyone who has access to and wants to possess it. Thus, in this way, blockchains solicit replication of information throughout the system and avoid the need for a centralized data repository. Consequently, it is difficult for a single node (hacker) to interfere with the data and propagate a false version of the history. With increased cryptographic-based security, these distributed chains of data are considered almost impossible to hack and incapable of being edited. This property is called the immutable provenance of data.

Together, provenance and smart contracts have paved the way for an important application of blockchains: tokenization. Tokenization refers to the process by which a real-world, non-transferable asset can be made liquid by converting it into a token for moving, storing, trading, rewarding, or recording of ownership provenance. Tokenization is enabled by the power of smart contracts and the immutability of blockchains. It is this feature of BCT that has broken governance barriers in the field of peer-to-peer (P2P) energy trading in Thailand [48]. Above all, it has broken barriers for people to invest in sustainable projects and crowdfunding. In other words, blockchains give people the power to vote (pay) for environmental conservation or sustainable solutions [49].

Overall, this section concludes that these highlights of blockchains and their associated applications have numerous benefits for public and private organizations. The next section will highlight the research methodology and the previous literature surveys that have been undertaken from a technical and managerial perspective.

3. Methodology

To address the objectives of this study, a comprehensive research methodology was employed. The methodology comprises several key steps, including a literature review, mapping organizational tasks to blockchain roles, examining collaboration between national and international bodies, matching the roles of Qatar’s national food bodies, and providing recommendations for the adoption of blockchain technology (BCT) within the national food security program.

As shown in Figure 2, this study begins by providing a general literature survey of blockchain technologies and its applications in the food supply chain FSC. We then discuss the various intergovernmental players and the suggested nature of collaboration that needs to occur between them in order to adopt blockchain. We introduce the concepts of “technology–strategy fit” and technology–stakeholder–collaboration matrix in the context of BCT adoption. We provide a list of potential obstacles and issues that might prevent blockchain development. Some potential directions for the future are also suggested.

The research will conclude by providing recommendations for the adoption of blockchain technology within the national food security program. Based on the findings from the literature review, the mapping of organizational tasks, the analysis of collaboration opportunities, and the alignment with Qatar’s food security priorities, this study will highlight potential benefits, challenges, and implementation strategies for integrating blockchain technology. These recommendations will take into account the unique characteristics of Qatar’s food system, the specific needs of its national food bodies, and the broader context of the national food security program.

Literature Survey

The first step of the research methodology involved conducting a thorough literature review on the use cases of blockchain technology within the food system. This review included a detailed analysis of approximately 80 scientific journal articles and papers. The literature review served as a foundation for understanding the current state of knowledge and identifying gaps or areas where further research is needed. This review was conducted and published by the authors in previous publications [50].

The existence of partial literature reviews in this area must be acknowledged here to clarify the need for this study. Among the earlier review/partial review papers in

Table 1. Previous Partial and Full Reviews on BCT Adoption Within FSC.

Paper	Scope	Year of Study	Number of Papers Considered
[54]	BCT Adoption in FSC	2018–2022	27
[51]	BCT Impacts on FSC	2018–2022	93
[58]	Enabler, Benefits and Barriers of BCT Adoption	2016–2022	52
[55]	Achieving Net Zero in FSC	2018–2022	55
[59]	IoT and BCT to Achieve Traceability	Not Specified	Not Specified
[57]	Analytical Recording Technique	2018–2020	Not Specified
[60]	Supply Chain Resilience to Cybercrime	2016–2020	860
[52]	Usable BCT Based UI for Applications	2018–2020	64
[53]	BCT Adoption in FSC	2016–2020	26
Our Previous Study [50]	Applications of BCT in FSC	2017–2022	89

, the papers of [50,51,52] can be mentioned, as they analyzed the area of risks and rewards of collaboration between prominent players of the food supply chain (FSC). However, [53,54] partially analyzed the adoption of BCT in FSC. Other noteworthy literature include [55,56], who studied FSC sustainability and BCT adoption. Ref. [57] conducted a Meta analytic review on Food Safety. It is evident that one cannot find a literature review on the national adoption of blockchain technology for securing food supply chains.

The search for articles was limited to Scopus Index, as this covers most of the literature published under engineering and management. In all steps of the collection process, the search was limited to the English language. The keywords used were “blockchain technology”, “collaboration”, “governance”, “players”, “food system”, and “food supply chain” from the year 2017 to 2022. For this review, the authors considered journal articles, reviews, and conference proceedings. Some book chapters were added, due to their importance.

• First, we searched for (“Blockchain technology” AND “Adoption” AND “Food Supply Chain”), which provided 65 publications. To ensure coverage of all recent works since 2017, we also searched (“Blockchain technology” AND “Food Supply Chain”), which provided 285 publications. The list includes work from Elsevier (www.sciencedirect.com), Emerald (www.emeraldinsight.com), Springer (www.springerlink.com), Taylor & Francis (www.tandf.co.uk), Wiley (www.wiley.com), and IEEE (www.ieeexplore.ieee.org). The results were accessed on 1 November 2021, then combined and exported, to check for duplicates and topic relevancy.
• Second, we restricted the scope of the literature review to understanding the relationship between Governments and human (groups/individual) players only. Therefore medical, nutritional, and pharmaceutical papers (for example: farmer–biosphere relationships, land utilization, and environmental impact) were excluded. Furthermore, we found that certain papers only mentioned the key words in passing in the abstract/title but did not venture explicitly into the topic of collaboration between the players of FSC.

Papers were rejected on the basis of studies on blockchain implementation in other than FSC industry adoption. Proceedings papers, book chapters, and articles that were written in a language other than English were rejected as well. Duplicated articles were also removed. During the submission process relevant publications from 2022 and 2023 were also considered to enhance the authenticity of our research. Finally, 80 papers were collected, classified, and analyzed for this literature review. While reviewing, their distinguishable characteristics were recorded in a spreadsheet, to be analyzed holistically. This study aimed to analyze 80 scientific publications published between 2017 and the present.

In the following sections these benefits are studied from an organizational theory perspective as much as studied from a technical point of view in the contemporary scientific literature. These organizational perspectives include the ability to collaborate, the nature of participation, and technology–strategy fit. In the following section, we discuss the organizational and innovation management concepts of strategy fit, decentralized collaboration, and knowledge management.

4. Discussions

Food systems include: (a) the interactions between and within bio-geophysical and human environments, which determine a set of activities; (b) the activities themselves (from production through to consumption); (c) outcomes of the activities (contributions to food security, environmental security, and social welfare); and (d) other determinants of food security (stemming in part from the interactions in (Ericksen, 2008)) [61]. With novel studies such as bio-economy Egea F. J (2021) [62], globalized trade Adinolfi F. (2016) [63], and food security Dixon J., Richards C. (2016) [64] being pursued around the globe, it is vital to have a thorough discussion about the food system interactions. The food system has players and influencers. Players are those who directly interact with food, while influencers are those who indirectly influence the objectives of the system. Every player in the food system has their own interests and motives. These interests can enable players and influencers of the food system to collaborate to realize business objectives, and citizen and consumer interests, as well as adhere to governance structures. Enablers (or drivers) are defined as resources, events or goals that make collaboration possible. Although a few authors such as Canali M. (2016) [65] and Parashar S and Sood (2020) [66] identified some of the enablers, others such as Sufiyan M and Haleem (2019) [67] listed the performance indicators of parts of the food supply chain (FSC). However, no literature work has sought to study the managerial enablers of BCT adoption for the entire food system governance. Upon studying the many literature works, we classified players into

• Government: Institutions that oversee, implement, and enforce standards and practices;
• Consumers: Individuals who make “economic decisions” about the food they consume;
• Citizens: Organizations and individuals (NGOs, nutritionists, doctors, trade unions, think tanks, common citizens) who can assert pressure and influence behavioral shifts in the society.

As mentioned in the previous section, a crucial aspect of this study involves matching the roles of Qatar’s national food bodies to the priorities set forth by the Qatar National Food Security Program. This step will involve a thorough analysis of the objectives, strategies, and priorities of the national food security program. By aligning these priorities with the roles that blockchain technology can fulfill within the food system, this study will assess the potential value and relevance of blockchain adoption in the context of Qatar’s food security goals.

4.1. Technology–Strategy Fit for Blockchains

A national development plan that seeks to position the agriculture sector to profit from the developing blockchain technology revolution must adopt a comprehensive viewpoint of the technology’s supporting capabilities. We would prefer to concentrate on the organizational side of blockchain technology, specifically the idea of “technology–strategy fit”. There are several definitions that pertain to the idea of “fit”, and a sizable body of literature has been devoted to researching the “fit” for a technology–strategy–structure relationship with regards to a plethora of industries. Therefore, after considerable reading and reviewing, we define technology–strategic fit as “tailoring administrative technology adoption mechanisms in-line with organizational strategy” [68,69,70]. Ensuring that technological investment is aligned with the overall company plan is the first step in ensuring that it is productive [71,72]. The idea of smart contract technologies and their relation to a (food supply chain) firm’s strategic fit needs to be considered carefully, due to the sui generis (unique) and pervasive nature of blockchain technology. This sui generis and pervasive nature refers to the nature of blockchains and their associated elements, as vastly different from the previous technologies that have been discussed in the past literature. One can easily fall into the error of understanding blockchains as a stand-alone technology. However, in reality, they ought to be viewed in combination with application layer technologies (digital twins, payment gateways, electronic voting) and data processing layer technologies (AI, IoT, big data). Thus, blockchains are uniquely placed as a “means” to a bigger goal. Second, technologies have advanced to such a level that there seems to be a seamless integration (if not identity) that they have generated of their own, divorced from their field of application.

It is crucial to define the scope of the factors taken into account by different streams before investigating strategic concepts. The traditional organization–environment comparison may be used to distinguish between the three categories of the domain: internal, external, and integrated. The dimension designated by the three categories is “domain of fit”. Proponents of one blockchain framework or another frequently focus on one of the features of blockchains, while overlooking others. For example, some frameworks propose blockchains as an ideal mechanism for voting. They build this framework based on concepts of trust and transparency. However, this framework completely ignores equally important aspects, such as reduced transaction costs, increased speed of transactions, and interoperability, as well as empowerment to mobilize campaigns, organize crowdfunding, and the inclusion of people in a decentralized network free of data silos. Rather than being treated as decentralized operations and organizations, blockchains should be utilized as a lens to rethink development plans, as a tool to enable all sectors, and as a new and potent way to empower every participant in the food system, from the farmer to the consumer, rather than as a standalone industry. This is not to say that we believe in blockchain as a technical fix, but rather that a thorough knowledge of the current technological revolution’s full potential and ramifications is required to achieve its growth potential—well beyond its contributions to a sector. In order to comprehend these institutional operations and specific rules, it is also necessary to understand how blockchains vary from other technologies or previous technological revolutions, in that it is an amalgamation of many technologies and expertise. Moreover, with every technological breakthrough, humans are at the center of the adoption strategy. Therefore, it is key to trace the necessary needs of organizations to the benefits of the technology itself. Thus, building on the literature review, we mapped the degree of collaboration expected from a particular activity and the number of organizations that are involved in Figure 3. Ideally, a firm should be on the collaboration–organization nature matrix diagonal in order to make the best use of blockchain technology.

Blockchain-based collaborations do not eliminate the need for humans. Most firms will use more than one type of blockchain and will also need to perform more than one type of activity (say voting and smart automation). This inference, therefore, calls for organizations to adopt a joint collaboration strategy, in order to have a shared alignment of outputs. This matrix can aid in decision making about technology adoption investments and identify business opportunities that are beyond the need of the hour, while staying in line with the organizational strategy. As observed by [73], blockchains are a central means through which human actors can execute cheaper, faster, and more transparent collaborations. However, the matrix is static, and its dimensions are traced in a simplistic manner, overlooking the dynamic nature of a firm’s operational strategies.

It is true that any technology during its initial stages is highly primitive and obscure in nature. This obfuscation of perceived use of the technology can create a slower “fit” process to the organizational objectives. As pointed out by (Rosenberg, 1972) [74] in his influential work, the pace at which improvements and implementations are made to the technology will play a major determining role in the technology–strategy fit of the same. This simple but powerful conclusion is true for blockchains as well. Although the technology has made considerable strides in the areas of transactions per second (throughput rate), security, and consensus algorithms, there is much more to be achieved regarding tokenization, automation, and diverse applications. As illustrated in Figure 3, we identified some applications of blockchains relevant to the food supply chain (food system) governance. This includes voting, automation, tracking (digital) assets, and tokenization. We also identified that these activities, although they seem to be similar in nature, possess vast disparities in their application to business collaboration scenarios. For example, an organization cannot choose to engage in a network voting event unless it is guaranteed that the participants in the network have a “pre-commitment” to the topic at hand. Such events can only be encouraged in a private blockchain network. In traceability projects, it is critical to determine whether the parties involved in the corporate activity should or should not exhibit certain interests or opportunistic behavior.Meanwhile, in the event of crowd funding or the initial public (coin) offering of a capital-intensive project, it is advisable for such an organization to digitize their assets on a public blockchain network, rendering the tokens suitable for transactions, hedging, and other cross-network operations. As a matter of fact, the blockchain-based governance of any activity should be first monitored and aligned with the concepts shown in Figure 3, to be most efficient and “fitting” for the organization. In conclusion, the nature of an activity or transaction conducted on a decentralized ledger network will determine the alignment and assignment of a participating organization’s strategy and the kind of network chosen. In the next section we discuss the concept of organizational collaboration with respect to the adoption of blockchain technology.

4.2. Role of Collaboration in Blockchain Technology Adoption

If a breakthrough technology is flawed in its initial phases, the rate of improvement will be a key factor in determining whether or not it gets adopted. Even then, the keys to breakthrough technology adoption are the “latent need” and “infrastructure fit”. Latent need refers to a strategic goal that cannot be achieved because of a lack of information or a product/service. In other words, a problem that a user or consumer is unaware of is referred to as a latent need. When it comes to developing and releasing new goods and technologies, identifying latent customer requirements is critical. Infrastructure fit, on the other hand, refers to the capabilities and settings that are readily accessible and available in order to adopt a particular technology. In the following section, we will discuss two key aspects of technology adoption: cultural behavior and perceived utility.

The adoption (and acceptance) of a new technology is typically seen as a long and sluggish process in time, unlike the invention of the technology, which often appears to occur as a single event in time. This continuous and rather slow process of adoption is justified due to external factors and uncertainties associated with such a technology. As mentioned before, blockchain can never be viewed in isolation, rather in conjunction with other technology layers, such as IoT, AI/ML, cloud computing, network stability, etc. This is why some have adopted the phrase blockchain of things (BoT) to highlight this point. Many uncertainties surround a national level decision of whether or not to adopt a new technology such as blockchain. Adapting a wide range of research across various fields, reference [75] (Roger, 1995) constituted an exhaustive structure for comprehension of the individual adoption and collective diffusion of innovation. Rogers’ theory is particularly significant, since it has impacted a slew of other adoption and dissemination theories, such as [76,77,78] (Boyne et al., 2005; Pennington, 2004; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The adoption of a technology may be hampered by imprecise predictions of its performance, high implementation and maintenance costs (caused by the technology’s small and emerging market), a lack of reliable expertise, and a lack of defined standards. Before investing in a technology, a government agency may only have a vague idea of its potential. The most reliable source of comparison for a company in this type of setting is its peers, or competitors and partners. According to [27] a private or public entity may choose to adopt a laissez-faire strategy when dealing with significant uncertainty and the potential for being stranded with new technology, particularly when the risks of adoption outweigh the potential benefits of being first to market. Blockchain technology is experiencing such an adoption process. As pointed out by [20], although there is a lack of expertise and standards in this niche, it must be noted that the technology’s superior qualities can fast-track this adoption process, especially with the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders; both national and local, and vertical and horizontal players.

As pointed out by reference [79], the digital governance of any system cannot be achieved without proper negotiation and communication. This calls for collaboration between stakeholders, which is embedded in bilateral communications. To the stakeholders, a properly communicated and coordinated approach towards adoption of innovations (blockchain technology) is key, because this allows the system to develop a shared identity and collective goals (Hardy et al., 2005) [80]. As tacitly demonstrated by Plotnikof (2015) [81], collaborative governance can only emerge through interactions, both constructive and resistive in nature, to produce change during the process of designing and implementing strategies. This is especially true in digital governance, where collaboration is at the heart of promoting and conveying institutional and infrastructural changes in the adoption and diffusion of technology and its associated use-case policies.

Figure 4 shows the dynamics between stakeholder communications and technological adoption effects amongst organizations. As shown in Figure 4, understanding the need for communication between stakeholders in great detail is key to understanding the further unfolding of communications and discursive aspects of emerging technology adoptions. As in the case of many gulf states [82] and the UAE [83], if a nation-wide adoption of any technology has a great impact on a stakeholder (public or private), their active engagement in technology adoption through consultation and collaboration is critical to its success. This serves twofold benefits. First, it helps one access and benefit from another organization’s importance and resources.Second, it helps to identify and mitigate complexities and uncertainties. Failure to discuss or collaborate with project stakeholders, particularly end users, can cause individuals to feel mistreated and lead to rejection of the project’s delivery or proposals. When businesses fail to consult and collaborate in these instances, they feel as if they are working in a “turbulent” environment, as depicted in the lower right hand corner of the technology adoption–stakeholder effect (TS) diagram (Figure 4). On the other hand, involving bodies that are not primarily associated with a collaborative project will result in miscommunications and confusion.

Fine tuning corresponds to directive or compulsory relationships with stakeholders. In practice, this means telling stakeholders what they need to do to meet the requirements of the project and using manager privileges to achieve collaboration. These processes include health certificate attestation, bill of order and bill of lading, certificate of origin, and export/import declaration approvals. Incremental adjustments are processes that require external ecosystem stakeholders to provide inputs, in order to arrive at a better efficiency of the system. According to [84], this requires the national bodies to adopt a consultative nature for the adoption of blockchain technology with regards to the players. These processes include the monitoring of food prices (selling price), inventory stocks, and insurance policies. Finally, a total reorganization of the system requires all parties to collaborate to adopt blockchain technology, to provide the greatest output and shared benefit to the individual stakeholders. These collaborations could solve the biggest problems of the food system, such as food waste, tracing the ownership of food from farm to fork, provision for food banks, and other activities, such as decentralized funding of sustainable and capital-intensive (water desalination, solar energy harvesting) projects in the food system.

5. Proposed Road Map for National Adoption of Blockchains

As witnessed in the Gulf region, such as in the city of Dubai [85] and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) [86], any effort to streamline government services, reduce paper-based transactions, and enhance the efficiency of various processes requires both vertical and horizontal collaboration. The same applies to the State of Qatar. This section seeks to propose an exact road map for catalysing collaboration towards the national adoption of blockchains within the food system of Qatar.

First, awareness campaigns, resource utilization, and commitments to action. All around the world, governments are building think tanks and research centers for blockchain research and policy framing. The UK and the US has national-level bodies such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Blockchain (APPG Blockchain) [87] and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) [88], respectively, for regulating and studying blockchain computing and its implications for society at large. To meet the significant and cumulative technological learning requirements of blockchain governance for food systems and related supply chains, the national innovation system must be reoriented. We need to make sure that we resolve coordination failures, attract complementary investments, and leverage network effects to use blockchain as empowerment and to service delivery infrastructure. Second, the nation has to build alliances for combined action for policy and institutional redesign. Some of the methods used to procure, trade, vote, sign, and certify food and consumption need to undergo significant organizational transformation. Humans are at the center of every digital revolution; therefore, significant strides must be undertaken on this front.

Third, we need to clarify duties, nurture participation, and establish public–private partnerships involving all parties, including NGOs in the food system. As depicted in Figure 5, a national plan should aid in the holistic working, as well as the facilitation of wide participation in the development and execution of important initiatives. It should not be seen as solely a government plan, but rather a joint effort. It should describe the government’s responsibility in establishing regulatory and institutional frameworks, as well as in promoting blockchain technology to private firms and civil society. Strong mechanisms must be put in place to support market dynamics, promote social applications, enable bottom-up efforts, and ensure shared learning and scaling up. Fourth, there must be a focus on exploiting blockchain technology for national food security objectives, as well as assisting in the sequencing and phasing of complementary expenditure. Policymakers and other stakeholders can use a national technology adoption plan method to target, prioritize, sequence, and phase investments and complementary actions. This should encourage investment and complementing measures through partnerships. This is especially important in the case of e-government, institutional paradigm shifts, long-term commitments to public–private collaborations, and other public-sector applications that require large expenditures. Likewise, it will be necessary to establish objectives for improving access to information infrastructures for organizations, individuals, schools, government organizations, civil society, and the scientific community. Without such national strategies, data system investments are frequently donor-led and fragmented, leading to priority distortions, enclave activities, duplication of investment opportunities, dilution of efforts, and unrealized or unviable benefits and limited scaling-up opportunities.

Required Advancement in Blockchain Technology

At the present rate of development, multinational agri-food businesses will almost certainly be the first to employ the technology in the agri-food industry. It is crucial that intergovernmental organizations focused on agricultural institutions take the lead in raising awareness, developing agricultural stakeholders’ capacity to adopt distributed ledger technology, and promoting international cooperation between the public and private sectors, to develop and implement inclusive BCT in the agriculture sector, in order to guarantee that all market participants benefit from the productivity gains generated by blockchain adoption. The quickest and most efficient approach to developing networks, provide the required legal framework, and move away from outmoded methods will probably be through public–private collaboration. Organizations with a focus on agriculture should continue to broaden their expertise and provide the kind of technical assistance that will be needed to train and support agricultural actors and governments in actively engaging in supply chains driven by blockchain for agriculture. The nation of Qatar has to build alliances for combined action for policy and institutional redesign. Some of the methods used to procure, trade, vote, sign, and certify food and consumption need to undergo significant organizational transformation. Humans are at the center of every digital revolution; therefore, significant strides must be undertaken on this front.

6. Application of Blockchains within the Qatari Ecosystem

The Middle East is one of the driest regions and most water-scarce areas of the globe. According to [89], in east Asia, particularly the Middle East, the biggest changes in the food supply happened between 1961–1965 and 2009–2013. The GCC’s highest global food security index, or GFSI, is maintained by Qatar, which is ranked first in the group (Global Food Security Index (GFSI) [90]. Due to little rainfall, high rates of evaporation, and a lack of arable land, it is unable to produce enough food to meet 90% of its consumption demands and must instead rely on imports. Despite Qatar’s large hydrocarbon reserves, which allow it to maintain a comfortable level of economic security through trade, geopolitical crises and rising global food prices represent a threat to the country’s food systems.

In the following section we look closely at the intersection of governmental organizations, their strategies, needs, and visions, and the overarching theme of blockchain technology strategy fit that is specific to the nation of Qatar. This section is divided in two. First, we concentrate on the study of technology–strategy fit for blockchains in the Qatar National Food Security Program (QNFSP) (highlighted in [91])—its necessity and alignment with the overall theme. This is achieved through a combination of strategy mapping and a content analysis of the published literature. Second, we turn our attention to the technology adoption considerations and their effects on the knowledge management aspects that are specific to Qatar. Exercising the insights we have discovered so far in the above sections will help in crystallizing the overall theme in the light of this specific case.

6.1. Key Elements of Qatar’s Food Security Ecosystem

In Qatar, blockchain adoption for national food security is centered on two important points.First, since government bodies are the first adopters of this technology, there is wide-spread adoption across other verticals and horizontals. Second, the nature and strategy of governmental entities towards food security is aligned and is marked by joint consensus and mutual communication. The particular case of Qatar that is being focused here is a case of technological adoption that is characterized by a “centralized market” and “homogeneous market adopters”. A centralized market is where all the buy and sell orders are routed through a single vendor. A homogenous market is defined as a market of entities whose goals are identical and convergent in nature. As illustrated by [92] (Karaer, 2008), under homogenous conditions, a centralized market is least vulnerable when both adopters and vendors are optimistic about the prospects of the technology (blockchain). In terms of socio-economical prosperity, reference [50] has shown that technology adoption is greatly influenced by culture. Qatar is a nation with high individualism and a globally informed heritage (Zahlan, 2016) [93]. This is justified by the very high immigrant-to-citizen ratio and the economic output of the nation (Babar, 2014) [94]. Individualism refers to a loosely coupled social network in which people take care of themselves. Groupism, in contrast, refers to a tightly coupled social network with a very strong collective consciousness. As inferred by (Bagchi et al., 2003) [95] in their empirical study, a nation with a strong sense of individual identity and cultural richness is more likely to adopt technological (IT) infrastructure. We therefore propose that Qatar is highly capable of adopting blockchain technology.

Apart from markets and culture, the national government of Qatar plays a critical role in ensuring that all of the resources allocated to food control work together to ensure that the whole food supply chain is monitored. In Qatar, there are three main national agencies who work to maintain the integrity of the different components of the national food system Figure 6. These are The Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI), The Ministry of Municipality (MoME), and The Ministry of Public Health (MoPH). Together these three ministries administrate, govern, and regulate the customs, price stability, quality assessments, consumer rights, public health, food safety, and its associated players. According to the National Food Security Strategy report (Qatar National Food Security Strategy 2018–2023) [91], prepared by the Ministry of Municipality, there are four pillars that Qatar has identified to propel the plans for achieving a high degree of resilience and self-reliability. These four strategic pillars are

• International Trade and Logistics;
• Domestic self-sufficiency;
• Strategic Reserves;
• Domestic Markets.

In Figure 6, we have mapped the roles and responsibilities of the three major ministries of government and their direct relationship to the pillars of food security. In doing so, from a theoretical framework, we bring clarity to the jobs and facilities that must be developed to actualize the effectiveness of blockchain adoption in the following sections.

Figure 6. Contribution of Various Governmental Bodies to the QNFSP.

Figure 6. Contribution of Various Governmental Bodies to the QNFSP.

6.2. Food Security in the Nation of Qatar

Food safety has traditionally been the responsibility of a number of central government entities at the national level, such as the agricultural, health, trade, and commerce ministries and departments. Such functions are entrusted to local authorities, municipalities, or local governments at the local level. Mechanisms for collaboration and cooperation amongst national government bodies have frequently been poor or non-existent. The existence of fragmented laws, various jurisdictions, discrepancies in enforcement, and shortcomings in food surveillance and monitoring might jeopardize effective food safety regulation at the national level. Blockchains are an excellent tool towards achieving this level of collaboration, without sabotaging or lobotomizing the autonomy, integrity, data security, and time dilation between these organizations at the governmental level. We say this due to the “continuous” nature of blockchain-based networks. Since each element of the system can have a possible influence on food safety, all components of the food production chain must be considered as a “continuum”, from primary production through (and including) to sale or delivery of food to the consumer. This continuous view of the food system incorporates service providers and small farmers into contemporary supply chains and pays dividends in the long run, by making these same service providers and farmers more accessible to modern input suppliers.

One of the most critical research works with regards to food security in Qatar was carried out by [96] Al-Ansari et al. (2017). Their paper explained the specifics and uses of the environmental assessment method for the energy, water, and food (EWF) nexus and exemplifies its use in Qatar using a particular food security case study. In the study, the EWF Nexus tool was used to evaluate the many choices for attaining a hypothetical goal of 40% food self-sufficiency in Qatar by dissecting a future food network into its agriculture, water, and energy components, which were represented as sub-systems. The Qatari government has shown a strong commitment to ensuring food self-sufficiency by implementing ambitious plans to increase agricultural output and diversify Qatar’s food supply sources. Despite the effectiveness of these efforts, Qatar is likely to continue to rely on imports for a major amount of its food needs (Ben Hassen et al., 2020) [97]. Qatar intends to cut food imports by 60%, in order to increase food self-sufficiency (Ajjur & Al-Ghamdi, 2022) [98]. The QNFSP plan was first implemented in 2014, and it is projected to be fully implemented by 2024. Towards this goal, Qatar has purchased property in Australia and Sudan through its sovereign wealth fund’s agricultural business, Hassad Food, in order to ensure food security (Ismail, 2015) [99]. While this remains a necessary step in securing the food system, it begs the question of how this will all be managed.

In

Table 2. Mapping the National Food Security Strategies to the Capabilities of Blockchain Technology. (Source: [91]).

Strategy Pillars of QFSP	Strategic Initiatives	Duties (Highlights)	Strategy-Technology Fit for Blockchains
			Prospects	Characteristic
International Trade and Logistics	Geographically diversify trade partners	Build a relationship between Qatar private sector and international trade missions.	Tracking and automating procurement contracts without the need for a centralized third-party storage system.	Transparency and Security
	Contingency plans to limit impact of trade shocks	Design effective contingency plans for resilience. Develop data dashboards totrack readiness.	Issuing governance tokens as rewards for partners willing to build resilience	Reward and Loyalty Programs
Domestic Self Sufficiency	Increase vegetable production by establishing a hydroponics greenhouse cluster	Finalize greenhouse cluster infrastructure plans.	Creating a blockchain based energy and food trading system to control and divert demand and supply between greenhouses.	Decentralized Trading Systems (Automated using smart contracts)
	Expand and improve production capacity for meat	Set up intensive fattening units and improve cattle herd management. Keep track of current aquaculture initiatives.	Creating a SFSC directly from farms to consumers by creating a DApp	Track the quality and authenticity of the meat. Reward farmers by giving them recognition in the DApp
	Cap production of fresh milk and poultry to 100% self-sufficiency	Any new project tenders should be put on hold. Increase capacity for milk derivatives or frozen poultry and egg manufacturing.	-	-
	Reduce ground water-based fodder production by switching to TSE	Estimate TSE availability for fodder & infrastructure needs and design a plan for transition to TSE.	-	-
Strategic Reserves	Leverage the private sector	Engage the private sector in developing a strategy for the creation of buffer stockpiles, including dates.	Building DeFi and DApps for funding and helping private sectors to interact with each other and the government agencies to keep a record of activities.	Granting access tokens and individualized permissions while maintaining one single version of the truth.
	Prepare strategic perishable food and non-perishables reserves.	Formulate strategies for infrastructure and verify investment plans. Create a reserve management method and find partners.	Socio-economic sustainable projects can be crowdfunded by leveraging the prospects of ICO and token-based dividends	Attracts investors from all around the world without having geographic barriers
	Increase potable water	For subsurface water storage, commission comprehensive design and tender criteria.	Design and track tenders/RFQs.	Transparency and voting capability
	Reduce net depletion of the Aquifer	Prepare strategies to expand TSE generation from wastewater and assess desalination capacity development plans.	Creating a blockchain based carbon credit trading system and achieve UN SDG 2030 with verifiable and traceable proof.	Recordable and verifiable proof of carbon certification
Domestic Markets	Streamline the domestic go-to-market model	Create the policies to transform wholesale market Establish a farmer support entity (infrastructure and procedures) and test several business models.	Create Short Food Supply Chains and D2C channels that showcase a fresh produce’s harvest, quality and price details	Make sure that farmers feel appreciated for their work. Control price fluctuation using token velocity and Avoid wastage at middlemen
	Establish integrated food waste program,	Based on diagnostics and benchmarking, develop a complete food waste control program.	Establish a tokenized approach for rewarding residents and citizens who participate in household waste segregation.	Rewarding good behaviour (behaviour engineering)
	Monitor food safety and streamline governance of food standards	Decide on and implement a new food standards governance framework. Hasten food quality check process at customs. Establish clear food certification process	Trace food quality certification all the way back to the exporter’s country and verify authority signatures (e-votes) Automate the issuance of ‘Qatar Premium Vegetable’ Certification to domestic and imported food from Qatar-owned international farms.	Automate customs while also ensuring human interactions at edge decision making. Immutability and traceability

, all the strategic pillars of Qatar National Food Security have been listed and mapped with their corresponding use cases of BCT. Every aspect of the QNFSP strategy has a blockchain-based application that can streamline activities and introduce revolutionary governance practices, making Qatar a role-model in Digital Food Security Governance. The literature supporting each of the blockchain applications has been listed, with specificity in Appendix A (

Table A1. List of Publications That Highlight the Utilities of BCT.

Serial No.	Authors (Citations)
1	(Apte & Petrovsky, 2016) [108]
2	(Tian, 2016) [109]
3	(Tse et al., 2017) [110]
4	(Ge et al., 2017b) [111]
5	(Ferrag et al., 2018) [112]
6	(Beck et al., 2018) [113]
7	(Zheng et al., 2018b) [25]
8	(Lin, Qijun et al., 2019) [114]
9	(Tao, Qi et al., 2019) [115]
10	(Angelis & Da Silva, 2019) [116]
11	(Dasaklis, Casino, Patsakis et al., 2019) [117]
12	(Mondal, Saikat et al., 2019) [118]
13	(Mao, Dianhui et al., 2019) [119]
14	(Tiscini, Riccardo et al., 2020) [120]
15	(Balzarova, Michaela A., 2020) [121]
16	(Chen, Yiyan et al., 2020) [122]
17	(Liu, Pan et al., 2020) [123]
18	(Köhler, Susanne & Pizzol, 2020) [124]
19	(Liu, Ye et al., 2020) [125]
20	(Maity, Meghna et al., 2021) [126]
21	(Przytarski, Dennis et al., 2021) [24]
22	(Kouhizadeh, Mahtab et al., 2021) [127]
23	(Masudin, Ilyas et al., 2021) [128]
24	(Pandey, Vivekanand et al., 2022) [129]
25	(Stach et al., 2022) [130]

).

Another aspect of technology adoption is the question of cost. In particular, the nation-wide adoption of decentralized ledgers and associated automation raises the organizational question of opportunity costs, ex ante costs, and ex post ante costs. As mentioned by [100] (Hall & Khan, 2003), the most essential thing to remember about technology adoption decisions are that they are never a choice between adopting or not adopting. Rather, they are always a choice between adopting now or delaying the decision till later. This closely ties in with the concept of “opportunity cost”; that is, the cost of selecting one technology over the “next-best alternative”. In the case of blockchains, the next-best alternative for the proposed solutions and identified mitigations (in Figure 6) cannot be fully met by another substitute. Although there are segment-specific solutions for physical traceability (RFIDs), ownership tracking (centralized data base handled by third party), automation (robotic process automation) and many others, they are all application layers that can be built on top of a blockchain network, giving importance to privacy and accessibility. The decision to adopt blockchain technology has to be viewed in the light of the acquired benefits, which will remain throughout the lifetime of its adoption. As the nation harvests the benefits of this adoption over time, the cost of adoption will be sunk and become irrelevant.

As mentioned by [73], there are certain costs incurred with respect to the pre-adoption stage and the post-adoption stage. Ex ante (before adoption) costs associated with blockchain adoption include designing the infrastructure for the network (hardware and software), training personnel and stakeholders to use the technology, and keeping old channels of transactions and communications active in case the new channels fail. These costs directly impact the adopter’s concept of increased profits, consumer safety, network impact, and the possible rise of skilled workers contributing to the economy and the system itself. More than the ex ante costs, firms have a continued responsibility for monitoring the ex post ante (after adoption) costs. This is because the post-adoption costs will determine if the adoption is feasible or not. The metrics that come into consideration to estimate this cost include both tangible and non-tangible factors. Tangible factors include expenses with regards to employment, maintenance, and governance audits. Non-tangible factors include the demographic attitude toward technology adoption, degree of communication of top level management with bottom level management, global indicators of adoption, and resistance or acceptance of the technology by external stakeholders. It must be noted that several conceptual models and frameworks have been developed to find out the adoption behavior of stakeholders. These include the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985) [101], technology acceptance model (TAM), (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000) [102]; Wixom and Todd, 2005) [103]), and many others. The study of (Marangunić and Granić, 2015) [104] is worthy of mentioning for the considerable and respectable review they made in this area.

As pointed out by [105], it is becoming abundantly evident that if that Qatari government is to really manage food safety, they must oversee the entire food chain, from farm to fork. From the farm to the fishing boat to the consumer, actions must be taken at every stage of the food supply chain. Many nations have adopted an integrated approach to food safety as a result of this topic, recognizing the need to address food and feed cleanliness, governmental controls, animal welfare, and animal and plant health. Governments must be the driving force behind this integrated strategy. There is no dispute that food security is a shared responsibility between every stakeholder of the food supply chain. National (governmental) agencies have a vital role in governing this shared ecosystem of responsibilities and in establishing vigilance and the resilience of the system. The incorporation of small farmers can be supervised and propelled by blockchain-based procurement of food and also by issuing smart contracts “Qatar made premium” certifications [106]. Consolidated providers might undermine governmental efforts to incorporate small farms.

7. Future Work

A possible future work that could be derived from our work is the importance of monitoring food prices through all channels of the food market. A complexity associated with the Qatari food markets is the wide variety of channels through which consumers make their decisions. The food market in Qatar predominantly consists of the central wholesale market and supermarkets, both of which have an ‘omni-channel’ approach to the kitchen of the consumer. This raises questions as to how to regulate prices, quality, and safety in different channels of communications (websites, social media, d2c). For food producers in the private sector, it is crucial to remember that there will not be a significant market for inputs until farmers can sell their surpluses. Procurement executives for supermarket chains are increasingly in charge of the food sector, and their inclination to consolidate suppliers may be counterproductive to the government’s plans to include small-scale farmers in the food system. This also highlights the need for food price control. Food prices are an important indicator of the status of food security. Food prices are relevant in two ways: their average level, and their volatility. Even though average prices seem accessible to the poor and provide enough incentives for farmers, market volatility and price falls can cause dangers and hardships for customers and farmers. Although extremely volatile food prices have negative effects for domestic policymakers at the micro level, food price volatility has a deeper and more insidious impact at the macro level: it hinders economic growth and structural change, which is a road out of abject poverty.

The digitization of laws using smart contracts is another aspect on which research efforts should be focused. Blockchains are yet to reach maturity in governance aspects such as codifiability (Lumineau et al., 2021) [107]. Codifiability refers to the ability of a smart contract to incorporate all the nuances that can be easily integrated within traditional contracts. Apart from this, there are several hurdles that should be addressed for blockchain initiatives in the food industry, to fully realize their potential. First is the issue of cost. This is a low-margin industry, so putting in the required investment may be hard for some supply chain participants. Furthermore, any proposed solution should create a win–win situation, where the costs and benefits are shared fairly throughout the supply chain. Another point to keep in mind is that full transparency and traceability from farm to fork requires wide participation in the blockchain network. However, some organizations may be reluctant to join. Some may lack the required resources. Others may worry that after joining the network, they will be required to share information that they would prefer to keep private. Interoperability and standardization are also important, to allow participants to integrate the blockchain solution with enterprise solutions already in use and to support information sharing between blockchain networks as needed. Technically speaking, the emergence of public and private blockchains—each of which uses a different consensus algorithm and has its own benefits and drawbacks—has resulted from the growth of BCT. As pointed out by [47], these should be studied and enhanced to avoid issues such as selfish mining, 51% majority attacks, and others. Furthermore, access to gathered information for blockchains is a major issue that will demand specific attention as the technology develops. Depending on the rules of the ledger on which it is based, the goal of the platform, and the preferences of the users, data access to a BCT can be either private or shared. There are many different types of permissioned blockchains and cryptocurrencies, and each has a different stance on data accessibility. The best methods for data security and transparency in blockchains are currently being developed as these technologies evolve.

8. Conclusions

The field of technology adoption is a highly concept-centric field and needs further expansion from an industrial point of view. The growing need for technology-specific study in this area will promote further studies with regards to blockchains.

In conclusion, we found that blockchains are a better alternative to the existing traceability solutions, which promote a silo mentality and inefficient collaborations. Blockchain technology has the ability to assist the government to minimize fraud, maximize supply chain stakeholder participation, and champion paperless–digital operations, while also enabling cooperation across many divisions and branches, to offer residents more efficient and effective services. Furthermore, the implementation of blockchain might enable government agencies to deliver new value-added services to businesses and others, perhaps generating new income streams. The blockchain revolution is going to enable transparent and responsible access to information for public empowerment and thus alter the mechanism of food system governance. We also saw that blockchain technology can be viewed from an organizational strategy fit viewpoint and a knowledge management point of view. Establishing knowledge-rich settings entails, not only ensuring transparency, but also ensuring that a diverse range of views and issues are heard and properly handled. With its four main characteristics—decentralization, provenance, job automation, and auditability—blockchain has demonstrated its potential to revolutionize established industries. We have given a thorough analysis of the nationwide deployment of blockchain technology for food security in this article.