Blockchain Adoption and Corporate Sustainability Performance: An Analysis of the World’s Top Public Companies

Abstract

Using blockchain adoption (BCA) data for 81 leading public companies in 2021, this study examines the impact of blockchain adoption on organizations’ environmental, sustainability, and governance performance. Employing the 2022 ESG scores from LSEG (Refinitiv) Database, which assess corporate sustainability performance across environmental, social, and governance dimensions, we regress ESG scores against blockchain adoption levels, company size, and various financial performance metrics. The results from the regression analysis reveal that blockchain adoption is significantly and positively associated with two sub-dimensions of environmental sustainability performance: resource usage and emissions. Additionally, firms exhibiting higher profitability and greater financial leverage appear to more effectively control blockchain adoption to enhance their corporate sustainability performance. These findings support the notion that blockchain adoption offers eco-efficient solutions that contribute to improved corporate sustainability performance, particularly through improved resource management and emissions control, while also offering actionable recommendations for policymakers and industry leaders.

1. Introduction

Sustainability concerns have been growing universally at a faster pace, as the number of climate-related disasters has tripled in the last 30 years [1]. Sea level rises due to global warming and deforestation, as well as air and water pollution caused by excessive energy use and production have triggered severe natural catastrophes in the form of droughts, floods, wildfires, and cyclones in many regions including East and South Africa, South Asia, the Americas, Australia, and the Middle East. Furthermore, public awareness about such environmental issues has been heightened, particularly with the lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Environmentally conscious and mindful investors and consumers have focused on evaluating businesses through the lens of contributing to a more sustainable world for future generations, thereby preferring companies with superior environmental, social, and ethical performance in their investment and purchasing decisions. Under increasing pressures from various stakeholders, companies have increased their efforts and investments to strengthen corporate sustainability performance to satisfy stakeholder expectations.

In implementing the triple bottom line (TBL) business approach [2], which emphasizes the three Ps—people, planet, and profit—businesses invest focus in social and environmental concerns in addition to profits. Thus, businesses take responsibility for the impacts of business strategies and policies on the environment, workforce, communities, and society, along with maintaining ethical standards. As emphasized in the literature [3,4,5,6], companies with distinctive corporate sustainability performance tend to enjoy numerous benefits, including building strong brand loyalty, attracting more responsible stock investors, reduced regulatory costs, and better innovation performance, which translates into enhanced financial and market performance, especially in the long term. Hence, the importance of corporate sustainability performance has been stressed globally among business managers and researchers as an apparatus to reinforce corporate reputation and operational efficiency for enhanced value creation.

To more rigorously explain how blockchain can foster sustainability, we adopt the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework as a guiding theoretical lens. TOE helps clarify how technological attributes (e.g., data immutability, real-time transparency), organizational factors (e.g., leadership support, resource allocation), and environmental conditions (e.g., regulatory pressures, stakeholder expectations) jointly influence blockchain adoption and its sustainability outcomes [7]. By emphasizing these three contextual dimensions, TOE not only illuminates why certain firms are more inclined to integrate blockchain solutions into their operations but also reveals how broader institutional and stakeholder demands shape this decision-making process [8]. Consequently, this framework provides a structured explanation of the causal mechanisms through which blockchain adoption can support sustainability—whether by enhancing traceability in supply chains, reducing carbon footprints, or improving social accountability [9].

In parallel to growing sustainability awareness, adopting blockchain technology has become a transformative business strategy for enhancing corporate sustainability performance. Blockchain-based solutions provide greater transparency and more effective monitoring through a secure and decentralized system that records and verifies business transactions in an immutable, peer-to-peer network [10]. Blockchain technology has been widely used as a secured framework in various industries such as banking, healthcare, agriculture, and cybersecurity [11]. In fact, top public companies have been using blockchain technology solutions in their operations since 2014, and 81 top public companies have been involved in various stages of the blockchain space as reported by a study conducted in 2021 by Blockdata [12]. However, the actual impact of blockchain technology adoption on corporate sustainability performance remains underexplored [13]. While several studies highlight its role in promoting sustainability—particularly through smart energy management, waste reduction in manufacturing, and supply chain optimization—a comprehensive understanding of its broader implications is still lacking [14,15,16,17,18].

The aim of this study is to explore the relationship between blockchain adoption and corporate sustainability performance by analyzing the world’s top public companies. To this end, we examine and evaluate the blockchain adoption levels of the 81 top public companies which are using blockchain technology out of the top 100 companies investigated by the 2021 Blockdata study [12]. We also leverage the 2022 ESG Scores of Refinitiv Eikon (LSEG) [19], which reflect the corporate sustainability performance of the companies in the environmental, social, and governance dimensions. We perform a comprehensive regression analysis of ESG scores for 81 leading public companies, meticulously investigating their levels of blockchain adoption, company size, and various financial performance metrics. To the best of our knowledge, this research is among the first to explore the relationship between blockchain adoption and corporate sustainability performance, providing a novel perspective on this emerging field of study.

The findings from the regression analysis demonstrate that blockchain adoption significantly facilitates the implementation of eco-efficient solutions, thereby enhancing sustainability performance. These results offer valuable and actionable insights for companies that have adopted or are considering adopting blockchain technology, providing a clearer and more detailed understanding of how varying levels of adoption impact different aspects of corporate sustainability performance. By illuminating this relationship, this study seeks to assist decision-makers and stakeholders in effectively utilizing blockchain technology to improve sustainability outcomes. Additionally, the research emphasizes the importance of understanding the interaction between innovative technologies, such as blockchain, and corporate strategies aimed at achieving long-term environmental, social, and governance objectives. This study not only adds to the expanding body of literature on blockchain and sustainability but also highlights the potential of blockchain technology as a transformative tool for promoting eco-efficiency and sustainable practices within the corporate sector.

The rest of the paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical background and hypotheses development. Section 3 describes the data and methods used in this study. Section 4 displays the empirical findings, and Section 5 concludes the study.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Blockchain Adoption and Corporate Sustainability Performance (ESG)

The importance of corporate sustainability performance has been stressed globally among business managers and researchers as an apparatus to reinforce corporate reputation and operational efficiency for enhanced value creation. To gain a competitive edge in an era of growing sustainability obligations, companies have increasingly focused on managing sustainability-related risks and enhancing their corporate sustainability performance across the environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) dimensions. Blockchain technology plays a crucial role in this process by streamlining and improving regulatory environmental and social disclosures through verifiable automated solutions. More importantly, blockchain can transform business operations by optimizing resource management, reducing waste and costs, and enhancing efficiency. Additionally, its adoption helps prevent fraud and fosters trust among stakeholders by enabling the development of innovative products, services, and business models. As a result, blockchain technology serves as a key enabler in strengthening overall corporate sustainability performance [20,21,22].

Corporate sustainability performance (CSP), operationalized here as ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scores, has become an increasingly important measure of organizational success in the face of growing ecological, social, and ethical pressures. Although sustainability was once seen primarily as a reputational or compliance obligation, it is now also recognized for its potential to bolster innovation, reduce long-term business risks, and attract socially responsible investors [3,4,5,6].

In parallel, blockchain technology has emerged as a decentralized digital infrastructure that enables secure, transparent, and real-time tracking of transactions and data. Beyond the mere ledger functionality, blockchain’s smart contract capabilities can automate certain sustainability processes—such as carbon credit trading or supply chain verifications—and can thereby reduce human error, fraud, and informational delays [10,11,13]. From a strategic perspective, the capacity of blockchain to aid sustainability is owed to its ability to (1) embed trust among stakeholders by safeguarding the integrity of disclosures (e.g., CO₂ emissions data, community impact reports), and (2) create operational efficiency through lower transaction costs and improved data reliability. For instance, blockchain-verified ESG data can diminish greenwashing concerns by making corporate claims auditable in near-real time [20,22]. Additionally, how blockchain delivers these benefits depends on the firm’s specific applications: pilot projects may revolve around digitizing supply chain information to reduce waste, while production-level initiatives could automate sustainability assessments across multiple business units.

Against this backdrop, as companies progress from initial blockchain research phases to full-scale adoption, they can integrate increasingly complex environmental and social performance metrics into their blockchain solutions, thus enabling a deeper alignment of sustainability objectives with corporate strategy. Consequently, we hypothesize that:

H1. 

A higher level of blockchain adoption is positively associated with a company’s overall corporate sustainability performance (ESG Score).

2.2. Blockchain Adoption and Environmental Performance (E)

To advance environmental performance, companies focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, employing renewable energy sources, optimizing energy consumption, reducing waste, and using water, land, and raw materials responsibly to preserve natural habitats. With this in mind, blockchain adoption facilitates transparent tracking of carbon emissions across the supply chain, helping companies report and reduce their carbon footprint. Moreover, blockchain technology enables real-time tracking of the sourcing and transportation of materials in the supply chain, which helps companies ensure that their products and services are compliant with environmental regulations. Although blockchain networks were energy-intensive in early stages of blockchain development, newer blockchain platforms and other green blockchain solutions promote energy efficient companies. In fact, smart contracts, which are a core feature of blockchain, can automate energy-efficient processes and help optimize resource utilization and reduce unnecessary energy consumption. For instance, monitoring and payment for usage of utilities or services can be provided by smart contracts [23].

By deploying blockchain-based solutions, companies can establish real-time monitoring of resource consumption—such as water or energy use—and verify the source of raw materials. Blockchain’s unique combination of immutability (once data are recorded, they are difficult to alter) and decentralization (data are validated by multiple nodes rather than a single entity), which together reduce the likelihood of tampering and foster greater accountability. With regard to carbon emissions, blockchain smart contracts can log and reconcile emissions across each node in the supply chain in a near-automated fashion, thereby illuminating Scope 3 emissions (those embedded in upstream or downstream activities) [14,24]. More advanced blockchain frameworks—often referred to as “green” or “energy-efficient” blockchains—are increasingly being used to address the high energy consumption concerns associated with older blockchain protocols [22,25]. As a result, companies that adopt robust blockchain systems are likely to have tangible benefits in resource use optimization and emissions control, and see better environmental scores in general [14,22,24,25,26,27,28].

Hence, we posit:

H2. 

A higher level of blockchain adoption is positively associated with a company’s environmental performance (E Score).

Given the multi-faceted nature of environmental performance, we further break it down into:

H2a. 

Resource Use—Blockchain-driven traceability can reduce inefficiencies in raw materials usage, energy consumption, and waste management, thereby improving resource use scores.

H2b. 

Emissions—Distributed ledgers can capture and verify carbon or greenhouse gas data across complex supply networks, helping companies more effectively measure, report, and reduce emissions.

H2c. 

Environmental Innovation—Smart contracts can automate eco-efficiency projects, facilitate green financing, or enable collaborative research across firms, promoting environmental innovation solutions aligned with a circular economy framework.

2.3. Blockchain Adoption and Social Performance (S)

To enhance social performance, companies concentrate on building safe working conditions, ensuring fair compensation, promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), developing community engagement through philanthropy and partnerships, safeguarding human rights within company operations and supply chains, and prioritizing the safety of consumers. Blockchain can improve social performance by validating that the partners in the supply chain provide fair wages and a safe working environment for their employees and do not use forced labor or child labor. Many companies use blockchain technologies to trace the origins of materials and ensure sustainable labor practices in their supply chains. One notable example is IBM’s Food Trust Platform, which leverages blockchain technology to enable real-time tracking of products throughout the supply chain. This system plays a crucial role in enhancing transparency and accountability, thereby helping to reduce the prevalence of forced labor and child labor in global supply chains [29]. In a similar vein, Unilever has adopted blockchain to incentivize communities for engaging in environmentally friendly practices, such as recycling and embracing sustainable behaviors. By doing so, Unilever not only promotes sustainability but also directly improves the well-being of local populations [30]. Building on these examples, the integration of blockchain technology by leading corporations highlights its potential to drive significant advancements in corporate sustainability performance. By fostering transparency, accountability, and community engagement, blockchain adoption serves as a pivotal tool for companies aiming to align their operations with sustainable development goals.

Blockchain’s tamper-resistant record-keeping can embed critical information—such as wage payments, working conditions, or certifications—directly into the supply chain workflow [28,31,32]. By verifying each step of production or distribution, stakeholders can see if a supplier, for example, adheres to fair labor guidelines or if raw materials originate from conflict-free regions. This transparency is why blockchain can be a game-changer for social audits: it not only provides a continuous, real-time account of working conditions, but also removes single points of failure where data manipulation might otherwise occur. On the product responsibility front, blockchain-based recall systems can rapidly identify and isolate defective batches, thus preventing harm to end users [33]. Such solutions arguably take longer to scale, as they rely on industry-wide collaboration, but when fully implemented, they can substantially elevate a firm’s social impact.

Thus, blockchain adoption has the potential to have a positive impact on social performance, especially in the dimensions of labor rights and human rights [22,28,31,32,33,34,35].

Reflecting on these arguments, we assert:

H3. 

A higher level of blockchain adoption is positively associated with a company’s social performance (S Score).

Because social performance comprises various dimensions, we distinguish among:

H3a. 

Workforce—Immutable records of wages, hours, and working conditions facilitate improved workforce practices, ensuring fair compensation and safer work environments.

H3b. 

Human Rights—Blockchain’s global traceability can verify that no forced or child labor enters the supply chain, thereby enhancing human rights compliance.

H3c. 

Community—Blockchain-based platforms can incentivize local communities to participate in recycling initiatives or sustainable resource use, leading to a stronger community dimension.

H3d. 

Product Responsibility—Product origins, safety certifications, and recall data can be stored transparently on-chain, improving product responsibility scores through timely interventions and reduced consumer risks.

2.4. Blockchain Adoption and Governance Performance (G)

To guarantee the effective application of sustainability-related efforts, companies have developed strong governance mechanisms by building an independent board of directors, promoting ethical conduct at all managerial levels, ensuring fair executive compensation, establishing concrete risk management systems, and protecting shareholder rights.

The power of blockchain lies in its decentralization and smart contract features: for instance, shareholders can vote on proposals through a blockchain platform that ensures each vote is registered immutably and cannot be manipulated by internal parties [36]. Additionally, real-time blockchain auditing can cut through multiple layers of subsidiary structures, forcing greater managerial accountability. Over time, these applications can bolster confidence among investors and regulators while aligning governance systems with emerging ethical standards. In summary, blockchain adoption may positively affect governance performance [14,22,33,34,36,37].

Therefore:

H4. 

A higher level of blockchain adoption is positively associated with a company’s governance performance (G Score).

Because governance performance is also multifaceted, we further refine:

H4a. 

Management—Blockchain-based management systems reduce fraudulent behavior through transparent logging of decisions and expenditures, thus strengthening the management dimension.

H4b. 

Shareholders—Shareholder voting mechanisms can be made more secure and fair when facilitated by blockchain, improving shareholders’ confidence and alignment of interests.

H4c. 

CSR Strategy—Integrating blockchain into a firm’s CSR strategy enables real-time tracking of sustainability commitments and philanthropic investments, reinforcing stakeholder trust in reported outcomes.

In sum, the overarching rationale for these hypotheses is that blockchain technology provides more than a novel IT infrastructure; it embeds verifiability, transparency, and automation into business processes—characteristics that can address longstanding challenges in sustainability disclosures and implementation. While the anticipated benefits often appear first in environmental domains (e.g., tracking emissions and resource usage), a deeper integration of blockchain solutions can also bolster social and governance pillars by ensuring consistent data integrity, ethical sourcing, and accountable managerial practices. Our four hypotheses (H1–H4)—along with their sub-dimensions—thus reflect an integrated framework that captures why and how incremental levels of blockchain adoption can reshape corporate ESG performance across multiple fronts.

3. Data and Method

3.1. Data

To examine the relationship between blockchain adoption and corporate sustainability performance, we analyze the world’s leading public companies. Our sample comprises the companies reported on in the Blockdata Report (2021) [12], which focuses on large, publicly listed companies and their blockchain adoption strategies. The report identifies companies that have publicly acknowledged their use of blockchain technology or have made significant investments into blockchain initiatives. The companies are from a broad range of industries, including finance, supply chain, healthcare, and technology. Blockdata gathers data from publicly available sources, such as company announcements, press releases, investor relations materials, and other corporate communications, as well as from blockchain-related research, news articles, and other market intelligence platforms, and combines both qualitative and quantitative methods in their evaluation. They conduct qualitative analysis based on the nature and complexity of blockchain applications and the strategic goals companies aim to achieve with blockchain. Quantitatively, they examine metrics such as the number of blockchain-related projects, investment levels, and the scale of operations to determine the adoption level. The classification is determined by analyzing the number and type of blockchain projects the company is involved in, their scale, and how central blockchain is to their overall business strategy. They also analyze the involvement of companies in blockchain-related projects, partnerships, and investments [12].

Specifically, in this study, we categorize blockchain adoption into different stages for 81 top public companies utilizing blockchain technology, selected from the top 100 public companies assessed by Blockdata in 2021 [12]. Additionally, we incorporate the 2022 ESG Scores from Refinitiv Eikon (LSEG) to evaluate corporate sustainability performance across the environmental, social, and governance dimensions.

The ESG Database of LSEG (formerly Refinitiv Eikon) is a widely recognized and reliable measure of corporate sustainability performance used in both academia and the investment sector. It assesses corporate sustainability across three key dimensions: Environmental (E), Social (S), and Governance (G), which are represented as pillar scores. These scores are derived from quantifying data collected from various public sources, including business and NGO websites, stock exchange filings, CSR reports, news sources, company reports, and direct company disclosures. Each pillar score reflects the aggregated performance across multiple sub-dimensions within its respective category. The overall ESG score evaluates a company’s ESG performance based on publicly available, verifiable data (LSEG) [19].

We rely on LSEG’s ESG pillars and sub-dimensions because they are thoroughly documented, transparent, and widely recognized. LSEG takes public disclosures—such as annual reports, CSR updates, and regulatory filings—and evaluates them using a uniform methodological framework, ensuring both consistency and comparability across a global set of firms. Moreover, each of the three pillar scores (environmental, social, and governance) is further decomposed into distinct sub-dimensions (e.g., resource use, emissions, human rights, CSR strategy). This granularity allows us to pinpoint exactly which aspects of sustainability performance may be most influenced by blockchain adoption. Consequently, by leveraging LSEG’s structured datasets and established scoring, we can more confidently link individual ESG outcomes (for example, emissions score) to the specific phases of a firm’s blockchain adoption.

Table 1. ESG categories and definitions.

Refinitiv ESG Score	Definition
Resource Use Score	The resource use score reflects a company’s performance and capacity to reduce the use of materials, energy, or water, and to find more eco-efficient solutions by improving supply chain management.
Emissions Reduction Score	The emission reduction score measures a company’s commitment towards and effectiveness in reducing environmental emissions in its production and operational processes.
Innovation Score	The innovation score reflects a company’s capacity to reduce the environmental costs and burdens for its customers, thereby creating new market opportunities through new environmental technologies and processes, or eco-designed products.
Workforce Score	The workforce score measures a company’s effectiveness in terms of providing job satisfaction, a healthy and safe workplace, maintaining diversity and equal opportunities, and delivering development opportunities for its workforce.
Human Rights Score	The human rights score measures a company’s effectiveness in terms of respecting fundamental human rights conventions.
Community Score	The community score measures the company’s commitment to being a good citizen, protecting public health, and respecting business ethics.
Product Responsibility Score	The product responsibility score reflects a company’s capacity to produce quality goods and services, integrating the customer’s health and safety, integrity, and data privacy.
Management Score	The management score measures a company’s commitment to and effectiveness in following best practice corporate governance principles.
Shareholders Score	The shareholders score measures a company’s effectiveness in equal treatment of shareholders and the use of anti-takeover devices.
CSR Strategy Score	The CSR strategy score reflects a company’s practices to communicate that it integrates economic (financial), social, and environmental dimensions into its day-to-day decision-making processes.

Source: LSEG (Refinitiv Eikon).

presents the list of the ESG categories along with the associated definitions of the ESG categories, while

Table 2. Themes of ESG pillar scores.

Pillars	Categories	Themes	Data Points	Weight Method
Environmental	Emission	Emissions	TR.AnalyticCO2	Quant industry median
		Waste	TR.AnalyticTotalWaste	Quant industry median
		Biodiversity
		Environmental management systems
	Innovation	Product innovation	TR.EnvProducts	Transparency weights
		Green revenues, research and development (R&D) and capital expenditures (CapEx)	TR.AnalyticEnvRD	Quant industry median
	Resource use	Water	TR.AnalyticWaterUse	Quant industry median
		Energy	TR.AnalyticEnergyUse	Quant industry median
		Sustainable packaging
		Environmental supply chain
Social	Community	Equally important to all industry groups		Equally important to all industry groups
	Human rights	Human rights	TR.PolicyHumanRights	Transparency weights
	Product responsibility	Responsible marketing	TR.PolicyResponsibleMarketing	Transparency weights
		Product quality	TR.ProductQualityMonitoring	Transparency weights
		Data privacy	TR.PolicyDataPrivacy	Transparency weights
	Workforce	Diversity and inclusion	TR.WomenEmployees	Quant industry median
		Career development and training	TR.AvgTrainingHours	Transparency weights
		Working conditions	TR.TradeUnionRep	Quant industry median
		Health and safety	TR.AnalyticLostDays	Transparency weights
Governance	CSR strategy	CSR strategy	Data points governance category and governance pillar	Count of data points in each governance category/all data points in governance pillar
		ESG reporting and transparency
	Management	Structure (independence, diversity, committees)	Data points governance category and governance pillar	Count of data points in each governance category/all data points in governance pillar
		Compensation
	Shareholders	Shareholder rights	Data points governance category and governance pillar	Count of data points in each governance category/all data points in governance pillar
		Takeover defenses

Source: LSEG (Refinitiv Eikon).

demonstrates the themes of ESG pillar scores.

Table 3. Corporate sustainability performance variables.

Code	Variable
ESG	ESG Score
ESGC	Composite ESG Score
E	Environmental Score
S	Social Score
G	Governance Score
E1	Resource Use Score
E2	Emissions Score
E3	Environmental Innovation Score
S1	Workforce Score
S2	Human Rights Score
S3	Community Score
S4	Product Responsibility Score
G1	Management Score
G2	Shareholders Score
G3	CSR Strategy Score

shows the corporate sustainability performance variables (E, S, and G) utilized in the study.

Companies of a greater size and with better financial performance (profitability) and market value usually have a higher corporate sustainability performance [38]. Therefore, various measures of financial performance (financial ratios) such as profitability, financial leverage, and also proxies for firm size were also included in this study as control variables. The list of these above-mentioned variables is presented in

Table 4. Control variables.

Code	Control Variable	Measure
Q	Tobin’s Q	Market Performance
PBV	Price To Book Value	Market Performance
PS	Price To Sales Value	Market Performance
YTD	Yield To Dividend	Market Performance
EPS	EPS Mean	Market Performance
PE	Price Earnings Ratio	Market Performance
NPM	Net Profit Margin	Profitability
ROE	Return On Total Equity	Profitability
ROA	Return On Assets	Profitability
AT	Asset Turnover	Efficiency
FT	Fixed Asset Turnover	Efficiency
ART	Accounts Receivable Turnover	Efficiency
QR	Quick Ratio	Liquidity
CR	Current Ratio	Liquidity
TDTE	Total Debt to Total Equity	Financial Leverage
BETA	Beta 5 Year	Market Risk
CAPEX	Capital Expenditure	Capital Investments
TA	Total Assets	Size
TR	Total Revenue	Size
MCap	MarketCap	Size

.

We include a robust set of financial and operational indicators—encompassing firm size, profitability, leverage, liquidity, valuation ratios, and operational efficiency metrics—to ensure any association between blockchain adoption and ESG performance does not simply reflect broader differences in corporate resources or risk profiles. For instance, larger or more profitable firms may have the discretionary resources to invest in sophisticated digital infrastructure and sustainability initiatives. Likewise, companies with lower leverage or higher liquidity can more readily fund pilot projects or expansions in blockchain usage, while valuation ratios such as price-to-book or price-to-sales might capture market expectations that indirectly influence (or are influenced by) ESG strategies. By accounting for these metrics, we isolate the distinct effect of blockchain adoption itself. This approach is consistent with standard practice in both corporate governance and sustainability research, where controlling for firm fundamentals ensures that observed ESG outcomes truly reflect the variable of interest—in this case, blockchain adoption level—rather than confounding firm-level financial characteristics.

Since 2014, numerous companies, including leading public corporations, have integrated blockchain technology into their operations. According to the “Blockchain Adoption by the World’s Top 100 Public Companies” report by Blockdata, 81 of the top 100 public companies were utilizing blockchain technology in 2021, with varying stages of adoption including research, pilot testing, development, and full-scale production, while 19 remained inactive, either having discontinued their blockchain initiatives or never initiated them. Specifically, among the 81 active companies, 27 had fully operational blockchain-based services, 24 were in the development phase, 14 were conducting pilot projects, and 16 were in the research stage.

The report categorizes blockchain adoption into four distinct stages: (1) Research, which involves selecting appropriate blockchain or distributed ledger technology (DLT) infrastructure, identifying potential partners, and developing proofs of concept (PoCs) before initiating actual development; (2) Pilot, where the blockchain solution undergoes initial testing with a limited group of professionals before scaling up; (3) Development, which refers to the creation of a near-production-ready service through alpha and/or beta testing following successful pilot phases; and (4) Production, indicating a fully operational product or service actively used by customers, clients, or business partners. Appendix A provides details on the blockchain adoption stages of the world’s top public companies, as reported by Blockdata.

In our study, these adoption stages serve as proxies for measuring blockchain development levels.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics.

Variable	Min	Median	Mean	SD	Q(0.25)	Q(0.75)	IQR	Max
ESG	21.58	77.56	74.63	13.50	67.36	84.65	17.28	94.60
E	25.94	77.87	74.35	15.37	67.72	85.60	17.88	95.85
S	17.14	81.68	77.85	16.29	67.92	89.18	21.26	97.68
G	24.51	73.27	69.89	18.24	56.16	84.31	28.15	97.39
C	0.45	27.27	40.67	36.04	10.71	75.93	65.21	100.00
E1	9.31	89.85	85.81	17.30	82.31	97.84	15.53	99.90
E2	35.51	89.07	83.53	16.84	77.54	95.89	18.35	99.81
E3	0.00	56.45	53.24	29.26	41.67	79.69	38.02	97.98
S1	25.16	91.16	85.66	16.11	78.71	97.86	19.15	99.94
S2	0.00	79.61	70.63	28.18	61.89	92.48	30.58	97.16
S3	21.68	90.48	83.61	20.16	76.40	97.83	21.43	99.94
S4	0.00	78.37	69.36	26.63	45.03	92.96	47.93	98.43
G1	13.19	77.74	69.88	24.63	51.90	90.72	38.82	99.89
G2	6.91	64.13	61.76	23.51	45.57	81.79	36.21	97.70
G3	24.93	86.91	82.11	17.75	77.78	97.04	19.26	99.51
MCap	43.70	193.02	298.53	358.07	136.10	318.73	182.63	2066.94
TA	10.76	117.63	524.91	1076.19	62.27	355.63	293.36	5536.97
Q	0.95	2.68	3.12	2.19	1.28	3.81	2.53	9.47
PBV	−51.88	4.03	8.09	29.59	1.63	8.15	6.52	248.21
PS	0.54	3.59	4.37	3.61	1.87	5.04	3.16	17.75
ROE	−0.36	0.23	0.28	0.30	0.11	0.35	0.24	1.75
ROA	−0.30	0.12	0.13	0.12	0.04	0.20	0.15	0.38
YTD	−0.75	−0.13	−0.12	0.28	−0.28	0.02	0.30	0.87
NPM	−0.62	0.16	0.18	0.15	0.11	0.27	0.16	0.50
BETA	0.19	1.03	0.97	0.37	0.71	1.19	0.49	2.03
PE	4.33	21.41	31.34	54.85	10.41	33.70	23.29	477.85
TDTE	0.00	0.56	1.45	3.46	0.31	1.27	0.96	27.65
AT	0.02	0.54	0.62	0.48	0.37	0.76	0.40	2.50
TR	5.60	62.32	108.80	125.49	31.60	117.64	86.04	611.29
CAPEX	0.05	3.43	8.01	11.49	0.97	9.69	8.72	63.65
QR	0.15	0.96	1.17	0.72	0.70	1.41	0.71	3.35
EPS	−2.23	5.84	8.27	8.53	3.14	10.77	7.62	37.87
FT	0.43	3.69	4.88	3.94	2.24	5.99	3.76	19.31
ART	0.64	7.63	10.24	10.83	5.61	10.62	5.01	75.41
CR	0.33	1.23	1.50	1.00	0.98	1.59	0.62	7.07
BCA	1.00	3.00	2.77	1.12	2.00	4.00	2.00	4.00

presents the descriptive statistics of corporate sustainability data alongside the levels of blockchain adoption by the 81 top public companies analyzed. This analysis helps to explore the relationship between blockchain adoption and corporate sustainability practices.

Figure 1 displays Pearson correlation coefficient estimates and a correlation matrix heatmap plot between the pairs of all variables. The correlation estimates indicate that blockchain adoption (BCA) demonstrates statistically insignificant correlations with corporate sustainability performance (CSP) metrics, encompassing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) composite scores and their constituent elements. While marginal positive correlations are observed in specific subfactors, notably Resource Use Score (ρ = 0.13) and Emissions Score (ρ = 0.06), other dimensions such as Product Responsibility exhibit minimal negative association (ρ = −0.05). These findings suggest that the implementation of blockchain technology does not independently yield substantial improvements in corporate sustainability performance metrics. Analysis of financial and operational variables reveals inverse relationships between blockchain adoption and market valuation metrics, including Tobin’s Q (ρ = −0.15), Price-to-Book Value (ρ = −0.06), and Price-to-Sales Ratio (ρ = −0.07). This negative association suggests that firms with superior market performance may not perceive blockchain implementation as a strategic imperative. Conversely, liquidity indicators demonstrate positive correlations, specifically Quick Ratio (ρ = 0.11) and Current Ratio (ρ = 0.18), indicating that organizations with enhanced liquidity positions exhibit greater propensity for blockchain adoption. Capital Expenditure emerges as the most strongly correlated variable (ρ = 0.27), suggesting that firms engaging in technological investment initiatives display a higher likelihood of blockchain implementation. The results indicate a potential mediating effect wherein financial flexibility and capital investment capacity serve as antecedents to blockchain adoption, which may subsequently influence corporate sustainability outcomes. However, the data do not support blockchain technology as a direct determinant of enhanced ESG performance.

3.2. Method

We regressed the ESG scores of the top public companies against their blockchain adoption levels, size, and various financial performance measures to explore whether the relationship between blockchain adoption levels and various dimensions of corporate sustainability performance remains significant after controlling for these factors. We also examined the interactions between blockchain adoption levels and financial performance measures to investigate how these interactions affect the relationship between blockchain adoption and corporate sustainability performance.

To explore the connection between blockchain adoption and corporate sustainability performance (CSP), we examined the world’s leading public companies identified by Blockdata (2021) [12] as active users of blockchain technology. Blockdata’s report analyzes the top 100 public companies based on market capitalization and publicly available data on blockchain adoption. Among these, 81 companies were found to be utilizing blockchain at one of four stages: research, pilot, development, or production.

These stages reflect the depth and breadth of blockchain integration. Companies designated as research are in initial conceptual or proof-of-concept phases; pilot stages involve limited, real-world tests; development indicates near-production or beta testing; and production signifies that blockchain is fully integrated into standard operations or customer-facing services.

Following Blockdata’s classification, we coded the degree of blockchain adoption (BCA) using an ordinal scale: BCA = 1 for research, BCA = 2 for pilot, BCA = 3 for development, and BCA = 4 for production. This approach treats blockchain adoption level as a proxy for both the technological depth and strategic commitment to blockchain initiatives.

Our dependent variables are the Refinitiv (LSEG) ESG Scores for 2022 [19], which are widely used in both academia and industry to measure corporate sustainability performance. The LSEG ESG database evaluates companies across three pillars—environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G)—and aggregates them into an ESG Score (overall sustainability), E (Environmental) Score, S (Social) Score, and G (Governance) Score, as well as various ESG sub-dimensions (e.g., resource use, emissions, human rights, management, etc.).

Previous research suggests that larger, more profitable, and more leveraged firms often report higher sustainability scores due to both resource availability and stakeholder pressures. Accordingly, we controlled for multiple financial and operational factors. Examples include:

Size: Log of total assets (TA) or market capitalization (MCap).

Profitability: Return on Assets (ROA), Net Profit Margin (NPM), or Return on Equity (ROE).

Market-Based Ratios: Tobin’s Q, Price-to-Book (PBV), or Price-to-Sales (PS).

Financial Leverage: Total Debt-to-Equity (TDTE).

Liquidity: Quick Ratio (QR) or Current Ratio (CR).

Other: Earnings per Share (EPS), Asset Turnover (AT), etc.

These variables were obtained from the same database (Refinitiv/LSEG), annual reports, or standard financial data providers (e.g., Bloomberg or Thomson Reuters). Missing data were addressed either by using the latest available figures or by applying listwise deletion where the omission rate was low.

We estimated several ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions to investigate how varying levels of blockchain adoption are associated with corporate sustainability performance. Robust standard errors (White’s heteroskedasticity-consistent standard errors) were employed to address potential heteroskedasticity. Due to the relatively small sample size (n = 81) and the large number of potential predictors, we adopted a general-to-specific model selection approach guided by the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). This approach begins with an inclusive set of covariates and removes statistically insignificant ones step-by-step, identifying the final, most parsimonious model for each CSP dimension.

Below, we outline two regression equations. Equation (1) is the baseline model. Equation (2) introduces interaction terms between blockchain adoption and key firm-level variables (profitability, leverage, or size) to capture whether blockchain’s sustainability impact is amplified or diminished depending on a company’s financial/operational profile.

$$CS{P}_i=\alpha +\beta BC{A}_i+{\sum }_{k=1}^K{\gamma }_k{X}_{k,i}+{\epsilon }_i$$

(1)

where $i$ denotes company index ($i=\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,81)$, $CS{P}_i$ denotes the sustainability metric (ESG, E, S, G, or specific sub-dimension), $X_i$ denotes the control variables, which can include variables such as PBV, PS, QR, EPS, PBV, PS, QR, and EPS, among others, depending on each robustness check, and ${\epsilon }_i$ is the error term. In this baseline specification, $\beta$ tests whether higher blockchain adoption is significantly associated with higher (or lower) sustainability performance, controlling for firm-level characteristics.

To capture the possibility that firm characteristics (e.g., profitability or leverage) may amplify or dampen the impact of blockchain adoption on sustainability outcomes, we introduced interaction terms:

$$CS{P}_i=\alpha +\beta BC{A}_i+{\sum }_{k=1}^K{\gamma }_k{X}_{k,i}+{\sum }_{k=1}^K{\theta }_k[BC{A}_i\ast X_{k,i}]+{\epsilon }_i$$

(2)

In this extended model, each interaction coefficient ${\theta }_k$ examines whether the effect of $BC{A}_i$ on sustainability performance depends on key firm attributes. For example, a statistically significant and positive ${\theta }_1$ would suggest that higher profitability (assuming $X_1$ = profitability) enables the firm to leverage blockchain adoption more effectively to improve (or possibly worsen, if negative) its sustainability performance.

Coefficient estimates on $BC{A}_i$ reflect the baseline association of blockchain adoption with CSP dimensions, holding other variables constant. Significant positive $\beta$ values imply that more advanced blockchain usage correlates with higher sustainability scores. Interaction coefficients (${\theta }_k$) reveal whether and how these effects vary with firm-specific financial profiles.

4. Empirical Findings

4.1. Empirical Model Estimates

Due to the large number of potential regressors relative to our limited observations, we employed a general-to-specific modeling approach. This method starts with a comprehensive model and sequentially eliminates variables based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), ultimately selecting the model with the best fit.

The regression analysis results show that blockchain adoption level is significantly and positively related to two sub-dimensions of environmental sustainability performance: (1) resource use score, E1 and (2) emissions score, E2 (thus supporting H2a and H2b).

Table 6. Regression model estimates.

	E1	E2
(Intercept)	81.469 ***	69.614 ***
	(11.185)	(7.086)
BCA	5.109 *	4.147 *
	(2.163)	(1.833)
TA	−0.006	−0.006
	(0.004)	(0.004)
Q	6.869	5.602
	(4.077)	(2.835)
PBV	0.253	0.328
	(0.390)	(0.371)
PS	−5.093	−4.426 **
	(3.057)	(1.607)
ROA	−105.187	−100.337
	(58.709)	(55.578)
YTD	11.854
	(7.530)
NPM	85.884	88.983 *
	(54.302)	(35.890)
TDTE	−3.019	−3.570
	(2.987)	(2.754)
QR	−6.222
	(6.320)
EPS	0.691	0.804 *
	(0.427)	(0.304)
ART	−0.292
	(0.294)
R2	0.342	0.279
Wu–Hausman Test	0.505	1.353
p-value of Wu–Hausman Test	0.865	0.229

Note: Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

presents the regression model estimates.

Table 7. Regression model estimates with interaction effects.

	ESG	E1	E3	S1	G1
(Intercept)	107.975 ***	122.865 ***	68.490	106.639 ***	215.358 ***
	(18.322)	(24.055)	(36.721)	(13.363)	(41.482)
BCA	−9.438	−5.810	−3.653	−0.698	−48.741 **
	(5.817)	(6.947)	(11.655)	(5.925)	(14.643)
PBV	−1.205			0.365 **
	(1.184)			(0.134)
PS	2.937		−8.099 **		24.405 *
	(2.894)		(2.928)		(10.910)
ROE	51.141	11.789			19.135
	(31.866)	(14.085)			(19.091)
NPM	−104.344	−277.498 *	−365.152 **		−546.705 *
	(73.931)	(132.096)	(115.805)		(211.218)
TDTE	−10.083 *	−12.428 *	−7.226	−4.001 **	−10.166
	(4.702)	(4.711)	(11.818)	(1.181)	(8.221)
AT	−24.194	−50.173	−117.115 **
	(24.506)	(33.238)	(40.984)
EPS	1.102	2.161 *	0.656	0.475 *
	(1.119)	(0.920)	(0.534)	(0.190)
ART	−0.482	−1.630	−0.678	−1.284	−2.056
	(0.362)	(1.085)	(0.559)	(0.916)	(1.907)
CR	−15.455 *		13.085		−70.025
	(6.855)		(16.191)		(38.859)
BCA*MCap	0.004	0.005
	(0.005)	(0.004)
BCA*TA	−0.001 *	−0.010 *	−0.009	−0.002 *
	(0.001)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.001)
BCA*PBV	0.419				0.109
	(0.390)				(0.078)
BCA*PS	−1.695	−1.468 **		−1.426	−8.099 *
	(0.913)	(0.486)		(0.875)	(3.257)
BCA*ROE	−12.360
	(11.965)
BCA*ROA	−37.546	−107.051	−62.043 *	−48.196	−67.078
	(21.103)	(53.833)	(24.241)	(26.456)	(94.689)
BCA*YTD	5.194 *	4.069	11.461 *
	(2.222)	(2.548)	(4.990)
BCA*NPM	52.206 *	103.905 *	128.976 **	30.968 *	158.215 *
	(22.404)	(41.050)	(39.171)	(14.368)	(62.464)
BCA*BETA	3.316		−25.122 **		10.605 **
	(1.977)		(9.349)		(3.495)
BCA*TDTE	3.292 *	4.158 *	2.915		2.212
	(1.561)	(1.804)	(3.938)		(2.675)
BCA*AT	14.573	17.827	35.575 **
	(8.103)	(12.594)	(12.005)
BCA*TR	−0.017	−0.022		−0.010	−0.021
	(0.012)	(0.016)		(0.008)	(0.030)
BCA*EPS	−0.409	−0.662
	(0.374)	(0.361)
BCA*CR	4.056 *				19.513
	(1.962)				(11.893)
TA		0.031 *	0.030
		(0.015)	(0.019)
Q		4.006	23.406 **		−29.205
		(2.221)	(7.524)		(17.386)
ROA		233.059			283.277
		(140.784)			(284.429)
PE		0.044		−0.480	−1.364
		(0.061)		(0.454)	(0.861)
QR		−14.940	−18.403		50.945
		(10.208)	(18.404)		(47.372)
BCA*QR		3.467		−1.869	−14.443
		(3.268)		(1.970)	(15.607)
BCA*ART		0.383		0.319	0.709
		(0.358)		(0.361)	(0.825)
BETA			97.720 ***
			(28.162)
FT			−1.313 *
			(0.641)
BCA*Q			−2.679	2.236	7.913
			(1.835)	(1.395)	(5.732)
BCA*PE			0.020	0.118	0.335
			(0.028)	(0.181)	(0.275)
MCap					0.022
					(0.013)
CAPEX					−2.550
					(2.226)
BCA*CAPEX					0.736
					(0.607)
BCA*FT					0.361
					(0.281)
R2	0.542	0.680	0.554	0.440	0.557

Note: Heteroskedasticity robust standard errors are reported in parentheses below each coefficient estimate. *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

reports the general-to-specific regression estimates when an interaction effect is allowed across the covariates. When examining interaction effects, profitability and financial leverage appear to mediate the relationship between blockchain adoption and corporate sustainability performance, especially for environmental performance. Financial leverage (TDTE) shows significant positive relationships with corporate sustainability performance in terms of ESG score, E (environmental performance) score, and E1 (resource use) score, along with the level of blockchain adoption. Similarly, profitability (net profit margin) demonstrates significant positive relationships with corporate sustainability performance in terms of ESG score, E (environmental performance) score, and E1 (resource use) score, in conjunction with blockchain adoption level. Additionally, profitability shows significant positive relationships with E3 (environmental innovation) score, S1 (workforce) score, and G1 (management) score. Thus, the interaction between blockchain adoption level and profitability appears more pronounced. Table 7 displays these regression model estimates with interaction effects.

The findings regarding the positive impact of blockchain adoption on carbon emissions align with studies [34,39], which indicate that firms can reduce carbon emissions by collaborating with supply chain partners through blockchain technology. Similarly, the positive effect of blockchain adoption on resource use found in our study supports the findings of [40], which demonstrates that blockchain helps improve recycling rates and reduce waste by tracking recyclable materials.

The positive effects of blockchain adoption on environmental performance primarily arise from its real-time data recording capabilities, enabling businesses to track energy consumption, carbon emissions, and waste generation throughout various stages of production and distribution. This enhanced monitoring helps companies reduce their ecological footprint by identifying and implementing more sustainable practices.

Although the positive impact of blockchain adoption on environmental performance appears more pronounced, it is reasonable to expect that these effects will eventually extend to other sustainability performance metrics, as their materialization in social and governance domains may require additional time [41].

Although some of the coefficients—particularly for the emissions score—are marginally significant, they nonetheless indicate meaningful real-world implications. For instance, the magnitude of these effects suggests that even a relatively modest increase in blockchain adoption levels could lead to discernible improvements in emissions metrics, an outcome that may be especially relevant for high-impact industries (e.g., heavy manufacturing, energy). Moreover, incremental gains in emissions performance can produce longer-term benefits, such as better regulatory compliance, enhanced stakeholder reputation, and potential cost savings linked to more efficient resource use. By highlighting these effect size estimates, our findings underscore that blockchain adoption can serve as a practical lever for firms seeking not only to demonstrate ESG commitment but also to generate tangible environmental improvements over time.

To ensure the robustness of our findings and address potential endogeneity concerns regarding blockchain adoption, we employed a two-stage least squares (2SLS) instrumental variables regression. Specifically, we used all variables and their squared terms from Table 4 that are not already included in the models reported in Table 6 as instruments. We then conducted a Wu–Hausman test to examine whether regressors including blockchain adoption (BCA) are endogenously determined. The results, presented in Table 6, show that the Wu–Hausman test did not reject the null hypothesis of exogeneity for BCA, indicating that our estimates are not biased by endogeneity. Consequently, these findings reinforce the validity of our causal interpretation and enhance confidence in the robustness of our conclusions. Due to the large number of regressors in the interaction models, we were unable to perform the Wu–Hausman test for those specifications. However, the results from the baseline regressions in Table 6, where the Wu–Hausman test was feasible, indicate that endogeneity of the blockchain adoption variable (BCA) is unlikely to pose a concern for the interaction models reported in Table 7.

The finding that firms with higher profitability and financial leverage are better able to leverage blockchain adoption to enhance their corporate sustainability performance aligns with the study in [42].

4.2. Discussion of the Findings

Recent research analyzing blockchain adoption among the world’s top public companies reveals compelling evidence of its positive correlation with environmental sustainability performance, particularly in resource use and emissions reduction. These findings underscore the need for policymakers to prioritize sector-specific blockchain implementation roadmaps tailored to industries with significant environmental footprints, such as manufacturing, energy, and logistics. For instance, mandating blockchain pilots for emissions-intensive sectors to track Scope 3 of the Emissions Inventorying and Guidance (EIG) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) supply chain emissions—aligned with frameworks like the science-based targets initiative (SBTi)—could systematize decarbonization efforts. Similarly, blockchain-driven resource-use certification programs, which verify reductions in water and material consumption, could be incentivized through tax benefits, directly linking compliance to measurable environmental outcomes [43,44].

To amplify these gains, performance-linked financial incentives should be structured to reward companies that achieve tangible sustainability milestones. Emissions reduction tax credits, contingent on third party verified annual reductions via blockchain-enabled carbon accounting systems, would incentivize scalable adoption [43,45]. For small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), grant matching programs could offset costs for blockchain solutions that support circular economy practices, such as material reuse tracking, with funding tiers tied to audited resource savings. Such measures align profitability with sustainability, addressing the study’s finding that financially robust firms benefit more from blockchain integration [46,47].

The establishment of public-private blockchain innovation hubs could further bridge implementation gaps. Regional centers co-funded by governments and industry leaders—such as energy or retail consortiums—could develop open-source blockchain protocols for cross supply chain emissions tracking [44,48]. Parallel regulatory sandboxes would allow firms to test blockchain-based ESG reporting systems under temporary compliance relief, accelerating the deployment of market-ready solutions. These hubs would also foster knowledge exchange, addressing the study’s observation that blockchain’s social and governance benefits may lag environmental gains due to implementation complexities [43,45].

Given the adoption disparities between large firms and SMEs, targeted capacity-building programs are critical. Subsidies covering 50–70% of first-year costs for blockchain-as-a-service (BaaS) platforms could enable SMEs to adopt emissions monitoring tools without prohibitive upfront investments [46,47]. Complementary workforce training partnerships with technology providers would equip SMEs with the skills to leverage blockchain-driven sustainability analytics, ensuring equitable access to the technology’s benefits.

Standardization remains a key challenge, necessitating collaboration between regulators and standard setting bodies to define audit-ready blockchain ESG metrics. Integrating blockchain data parameters into frameworks like the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) would enhance comparability [45,48], while interoperability standards could ensure that blockchain-generated sustainability data aligns with evolving regulations, such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [43,44].

Enhanced disclosure requirements should mandate real-time blockchain reporting of Scope 1 and 2 of the EPA’s EIG for publicly traded companies, with penalties for data gaps exceeding 5% of total emissions [46,47]. Materiality thresholds requiring blockchain verification for sustainability claims involving over 10% of operational resources would further deter greenwashing. These recommendations, grounded in empirical evidence of blockchain’s environmental efficacy, provide a roadmap for policymakers to harness decentralized technologies in achieving global sustainability targets [43,45].

Finally, blockchain applications in environmental initiatives tend to be more mature, partly because they often involve quantifiable metrics like carbon footprints or resource usage, making them more straightforward to monitor and optimize. In contrast, social and governance domains entail more complex, qualitative factors—such as stakeholder engagement, internal decision-making structures, and ethical protocols—that require longer to implement and evaluate effectively. Consequently, while environmental gains can emerge relatively quickly through clear data-tracking mechanisms, the social and governance impacts of blockchain adoption may need additional time and institutional buy-in to manifest fully.

4.3. Study Limitations

While this study provides important insights into how blockchain adoption may influence corporate sustainability performance, several limitations merit attention. First, our sample is derived from the 100 largest public companies identified by Blockdata. However, due to incomplete data and disclosure gaps, our final sample consists of 81 firms, reflecting a specific subset of firms with relatively advanced blockchain initiatives. This data selection bias could limit the generalizability of our findings to smaller firms or those at earlier stages of blockchain exploration. Although focusing on major adopters offers meaningful perspectives on the technology’s potential, it also means that industries or regions with lesser-known adoption activities may be underrepresented. Second, measuring blockchain adoption remains challenging due to the absence of standardized or widely accepted metrics. While the Blockdata classification provides useful granularity (e.g., distinguishing pilot programs from full-scale implementations), such categorizations may still overlook nuanced or emerging use cases within an organization. As the field evolves rapidly, the criteria for what constitutes “adoption” may shift, further complicating attempts at longitudinal comparisons. Third, the ESG data used in our analysis—drawn from LSEG (Refinitiv)—may be subject to variations in disclosure standards and reporting practices. Although we employ a number of ESG sub-metrics for robustness, these ratings cannot fully capture the complexity of each firm’s sustainability performance. In addition, there is an inherent risk that self-reported or third-party ESG ratings may not always reflect on-the-ground realities, potentially introducing measurement bias. Fourth, while we endeavor to mitigate endogeneity through instrumental variable regressions and a variety of control variables, it is possible that unobserved factors—such as organizational culture, industry-specific regulations, or managerial expertise—may influence both the decision to adopt blockchain and sustainability outcomes. Finally, a sample of this size also poses concerns about statistical power, potentially reducing our ability to detect subtle effects or nuances in the data.

Taken together, these limitations suggest a need for cautious interpretation of the results and underscore opportunities for future research with broader, more diverse samples and more refined measures of blockchain adoption.

5. Conclusions

Blockchain technology adoption has emerged as an innovative business model for enhancing corporate sustainability performance, as blockchain-based solutions deliver improved transparency and effective monitoring through reliable decentralized systems. This study explores the relationships between blockchain adoption and corporate sustainability performance by analyzing the world’s top public companies. We examine blockchain adoption stages as levels of adoption for 81 top public companies using blockchain technology, as investigated by Blockdata in 2021 [12], alongside 2022 ESG Scores from LSEG, which reflect corporate sustainability performance across environmental, social, and governance dimensions. We regress ESG scores against blockchain adoption levels, size, and various financial performance measures.

Regression analysis shows that blockchain adoption level is significantly and positively related to two sub-dimensions of environmental sustainability performance: (1) resource use score and (2) emissions score. Our findings imply that blockchain adoption can help companies reduce their use of materials, energy, and water through more eco-efficient solutions, and improve supply chain management. Similarly, blockchain adoption helps companies reduce emissions in their production and operations. Moreover, our analysis indicates that firms with higher profitability and financial leverage are better able to leverage blockchain adoption to enhance their corporate sustainability performance. Thus, the findings reveal that blockchain adoption provides companies with eco-efficient solutions that enhance corporate sustainability performance.

Furthermore, our hypotheses (H1–H4) were designed to capture how incremental levels of blockchain adoption (from research to production) correlate with different dimensions of corporate sustainability performance. Specifically, H1 posited a general positive impact on overall ESG outcomes, while H2, H3, and H4 each focused on the environmental, social, and governance pillars, respectively. The empirical results confirm that the most immediate gains are observed within environmental sub-components (resource use and emissions), suggesting that the tangible, operational nature of blockchain-based tracking systems can yield quicker results in these domains. The four adoption stages—research, pilot, development, and production—served as proxies for a company’s blockchain maturity, allowing us to parse out how firms progressively integrate the technology from initial proofs of concept to full-scale implementation.

Given the resource-intensive requirements of advanced adoption, our findings also highlight that high-profit, well-capitalized firms are typically better positioned to reap early rewards. Future research should expand this framework by gathering qualitative data from small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)—including innovative start-ups—to better understand whether smaller-scale organizations, which may operate with more agility but less capital, can similarly leverage blockchain for environmental, social, and governance improvements. This type of in-depth, case-based exploration would shed light on how blockchain-driven sustainability strategies unfold under varying resource constraints.

Although the positive impact of blockchain adoption on environmental performance appears more pronounced, it is reasonable to expect that these effects will eventually extend to other sustainability performance metrics, as their materialization in social and governance domains may require additional time [41].

Based on the findings of the study, several actionable policy recommendations can be proposed to advance corporate sustainability through the adoption of blockchain technology. Firstly, firms should be encouraged to gradually integrate blockchain systems into their operations, with particular emphasis on areas such as resource utilization and emissions reduction, where the technology demonstrates potential for substantial environmental benefits. This phased approach enables organizations to systematically evaluate and refine their blockchain implementation strategies. Secondly, policymakers and regulatory bodies could consider introducing financial incentives, including tax reductions or grants, to support companies investing in blockchain applications aimed at mitigating environmental impact. For instance, subsidies could be provided for blockchain-based solutions that enhance supply chain management and monitor emissions, thereby aligning corporate sustainability goals with economic profitability.

Furthermore, the establishment of public-private partnerships could significantly promote collaboration and the exchange of knowledge on blockchain innovations aimed at advancing corporate sustainability. Such a collaborative framework would empower companies to collectively address sustainability challenges by utilizing blockchain technology to enhance transparency and operational efficiency. Moreover, as financially robust firms are often better positioned to benefit from blockchain adoption, it becomes essential to extend targeted support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Initiatives such as government-backed loans or technical assistance programs could play a pivotal role in facilitating the integration of blockchain technologies, thereby enabling these firms to enhance their sustainability performance. These targeted policy measures are not only intended to promote the adoption of blockchain technology but are also carefully aligned with broader global sustainability objectives, aiming to reduce environmental footprints across diverse industries.

This study focuses on large-cap public companies due to limited data access regarding blockchain adoption levels for private and small-cap companies. Although the positive impact of blockchain adoption on environmental performance appears more pronounced, it is reasonable to expect that these effects will eventually extend to other sustainability performance metrics, as their materialization in social and governance domains may require additional time [41]. However, the findings may provide valuable insights for companies currently using or planning to use blockchain solutions in their business processes, particularly regarding how different levels of blockchain adoption influence various dimensions of corporate sustainability performance.

Although the data provider of this study (LSEG) provides a vast database of ESG metrics for thousands of global companies spanning multiple industries and regions, it should be noted that different data providers have their own methodologies for scoring sustainability. Thus, alternative data providers such as Bloomberg can be used in future studies to obtain a more comprehensive view of sustainability performance.