The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-9880.htm

JHTT
15,1 Blockchain adoption in the food and
beverage industry from a behavioral
reasoning perspective: moderating
138 roles of supply chain partnerships
Received 6 February 2023 Ha-Won Jang
Revised 27 June 2023
9 September 2023
College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University,
Accepted 26 September 2023 Seoul, Republic of Korea
Hyo Sun Jung
Center for Converging Humanities, Kyung Hee University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea, and
Meehee Cho
College of Hotel and Tourism Management, Kyung Hee University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea

Abstract
Purpose – Blockchains provide significant benefits for business operations due to its transparency, traceability
and information sharing. However, application to the food and beverage (F&B) industry was scarce. The purpose of
this study is to explore how to form F&B managers’ blockchain adoption by applying behavioral reasoning theory
(BRT). Additionally, supply chain partnerships (SCPs) were tested for the potential moderating roles within BRT.
This study’s findings expand existing knowledge by providing novel information for F&B management.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from F&B managers by using an online survey
method. A structural equation modeling and multi-group analysis were performed to test the hypothesized relationships.
Findings – Findings revealed that the positive effects of “reasons for” on “attitudes,” and “adoption intentions”
while “reasons against” did not show such effects. Environmental benefits of blockchains were found to lead
more positive attitudes while traditional barriers were the greatest constraints for adopting blockchains. This
study supports the significant moderating roles of SCPs within the context of F&B blockchain adoption.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the technology literature in the foodservice context by
applying BRT as a theoretical lens. The importance of developing SCPs for F&B blockchain adoption and
exploitation is highlighted.
Keywords F&B industry, Blockchain adoption, Behavioral reasoning theory,
Supply chain partnerships, Blockchain technology
Paper type Research paper

从行为推理的角度看食品和饮料行业的区块链采用：供应链合作的调节作用
摘要
研究目的 – 区块链因其透明度、可追溯性和信息共享而为企业运营提供了重要的好处。然而, 将其应
用于食品和饮料（F&B）行业却很少见。本研究探讨了如何通过应用行为推理理论（BRT）来形成
Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology
F&B 管理 者的区块 链采用。此 外, 本 研究还测试 了供应链合 作（S C P s ）在BR T内 的潜在调
Vol. 15 No. 1, 2024 节作用 。通过为 F &B 管 理提供新颖 信息, 我们的研 究结果扩 展了现有知 识领域。
pp. 138-155
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-9880
DOI 10.1108/JHTT-01-2023-0020 This work was supported by a Grant from Kyung Hee University (KHU-20201248).
研究方法 – 采用在线调查方法收集了来自 F&B 管理者的数据。进行了结构方程建模和多组分析, 以 Blockchain
测试假设关系。
adoption
研究发现 – 研究结果显示, “支持的原因”对“态度”和“采用意向”有积极影响, 而“反对的原因”则没有显
示出这种影响。区块链的环境优势被发现会导致更积极的态度, 而传统障碍是采用区块链的最大限制
因素。本研究还证实了 SCP 在 F&B 区块链采用背景下的重要调节作用。
研究创新 – 本研究通过应用 BRT 作为理论视角, 为餐饮服务背景下的技术文献做出了贡献。强调了
发展 F&B 区块链采用和利用的供应链合作的重要性。
关键词 餐饮行业、区块链采用、行为推理理论、供应链合作 139
文章类型 研究型论文

Introduction
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, one-third of the food intended
for human consumption in the world is wasted annually (EPA, 2022). Food waste is a
major cause of climate change and other environmental issues. Food systems are
greatly responsible for the equivalent of 17.9 billion tons of carbon dioxide, representing
34% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Crippa et al., 2021). Another significant
amount of food waste is driven from food recalls defined as actions taken to remove
deficient food from the market attributed to any stage of the food supply chain
(Piramuthu et al., 2013). Thus, food and beverage (F&B) companies must continuously
monitor their operations as well as their supply processes to adhere to safe, ethical and
sustainable processes.
Prior studies have highlighted the benefits of blockchain technologies, specifically in
enhancing consumer trust through the traceability of the food supply chain (Tham and
Sigala, 2020; Thompson and Rust, 2023). Blockchain technology is a shared, immutable
public ledger of all transactions executed among multiple parties (Ali et al., 2020). Its major
purpose is to enable essential data to be recorded and distributed, but not altered, deleted or
destroyed (Buhalis et al., 2022). This allows the F&B system to implement inspection
programs and detect food safety hazards more effectively (Shirley, 2022).
The F&B industry has begun to adopt blockchains to advance food reliability and
sustainable business operations (Filimonau and Naumova, 2020). Starbucks provides
customers an opportunity to better understand their bean’s origin and production by
launching blockchain-enable traceability. A code on the back of a bag of coffee beans
provides consumers with access to information regarding where their beans were grown
and roasted to document the product’s trail from bean to cup (Kshetri, 2018).
There exists another line of inquiry that delves into the challenges associated with
blockchain adoption in the F&B sector, particularly the concerns surrounding the
sharing of internal information with business partners (Jang et al., 2023). Most F&B
employees who are unfamiliar with blockchains hesitate to learn and implement new
work processes, as with any change in their current systems (Palamara, 2018). Thus, the
barriers and weaknesses of blockchains, in conjunction with its benefits, should be
addressed by encompassing both user and technology perspectives. Accordingly,
Behavioral Reasoning Theory (BRT) (Westaby, 2005) is applied as a theoretical lens for
this study to address both reasons “for” and “against” blockchain adoption in the F&B
industry.
Research has yet to address how to improve the positive roles of “reasons for” and
weaken the negative impacts of “reasons against,” leading to improved blockchain adoption.
This study attempts to fill this void in the literature by focusing on potentially important
roles of supply chain partnerships (SCPs) within BRT. Al-Aomar and Hussain (2017)
revealed that strong SCPs are the most important strategy for business innovative
JHTT operations because they facilitate inter-firm cooperative behaviors. Thus, SCPs are
15,1 incorporated into our research framework to explore their potential moderating effects
between the main constructs of BRT. The objectives of this study are to examine how two
contrast reasoning factors affect F&B employees’ attitudes and their blockchain adoption
intentions, and to explore whether SCPs enhance the relationships between “reasons for,”
attitudes and blockchain adoption intentions, while reducing the negative impacts of
140 “reasons against” on attitudes, thereby improving blockchain adoption intentions.

Literature review
Blockchain technology for the food and beverage industry
Blockchains refer to a digital transaction ledger that is open, shared and distributed across a
network of multiple sites and geographies (Ali et al., 2020). Blockchains enable information
disclosure and real-time tracking of business activities, and improves transparency related
to operational processes, and flexibility for resource exploitation (Buhalis et al., 2022). The
benefits of blockchains in a supply chain are derived from the improved transparency and
visibility of business activities, thereby enhancing environmental and social responsibility
goals and financial performance (Kshetri, 2018).
Given the frequent product recalls faced by F&B businesses, blockchains can be beneficial
to achieve provenance and immutability by sharing its decentralized and transaction data
across different supply chain stages (Yang et al., 2022). Blockchains can substantially assist the
F&B industry in improving real-time coordination between business partners to achieve more
cost-efficient and eco-environmental business performance. As modern consumers become
more sensitive to F&B companies’ ethical sourcing and production activities, blockchain
adoption could represent a normative solution (Jang et al., 2023). Singh and Sharma (2022)
claimed that blockchains contribute to reducing the difference between food supply and
demand, thereby minimizing food waste and improving environmental protection. Thus,
blockchains can be the most promising approach to meet future trends focusing on
sustainability, wellness and transparency in the F&B industry.

Behavioral reasoning theory

The basic framework of BRT is based on Fishbein et al.’s (1975) theory, which explains
individuals’ cognitive and subjective judgment processes using a variable termed “reason.”
Westaby (2005) proposed BRT by stating that most behavioral theories were derived from
two theories, the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior.
BRT is constructed based on various types of beliefs and motivations, behavioral
theories and associations with behavior. Two conflicting reasons “for” and “against” a
certain behavior are added to BRT, so that values and beliefs work differently depending on
the situation (Sahu et al., 2020). This is because, when individuals act with intention, they
have certain reasons for doing so, and two opposing reasons act on their inner psychology,
“reasons for” and “reasons against.” While “reasons for” motivate and create positive
perceptions, “reasons against” act as barriers and arouse negative perceptions (Westaby,
2005). A recent study by Tufail et al. (2022) demonstrated that reasons for and against
sequentially affect consumers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions. Consequently, it has
become very important to predict when and for what reasons consumers adopt new
technological innovations (Dhir et al., 2021). BRT analyzes consumers’ psychology in depth
from the two perspectives of technology acceptance and resistance factors and suggest
meaningful implications for consumer behaviors at the corporate level (Claudy et al., 2015;
Dhir et al., 2021). As prior literature identified personal values and/or openness to change as
determinants of those two reasoning factors (Tufail et al., 2022), our study seeks to diversify
the analysis of the results by using both reasoning factors as independent variables to Blockchain
clarify more detailed causal relationships. adoption
Hypothesis development
Personal value for/belief in new technology, openness to change and reasons (for and against)
blockchain adoption
Claudy et al. (2015) found that when consumers discover new innovations that are 141
compatible with their personal values, they tend to search for reasons to adopt the
innovations. From the viewpoint of “reasons against,” Wang et al. (2021) asserted in a study
of green consumption that personal values and beliefs negatively affect “reasons against,”
and Tufail et al. (2022) suggested that personal values reinforce “reasons for” and reduce
“reasons against” in a purchase decision making process.
“Openness to change” represents individual tendencies (Singh and Srivastava, 2021) and
is regarded as the significant cause of “reasons for” and/or “reasons against.” Gupta and
Arora (2017) found that the values of consumers’ openness to change had positive effects on
reasons for adoption. Sivathanu (2018a) indicated that openness to change had positive
effects on “reasons for” IoT adoption while having negative effects on “reasons against.”
This might be because individuals with high levels of openness to change feel that new
products or services are more interesting and enjoy exploring new experiences:

H1. F&B managers’ personal value for/belief in new technology positively affects “reasons
for” (H1a), but negatively influences “reasons against” (H1b) blockchain adoption.
H2. F&B managers’ openness to change positively affects “reasons for” (H2a), but
negatively influences “reasons against” (H2b) blockchain adoption.

Reasons (for and against) blockchain adoption, attitudes and adoption intentions
Through reasoning variables, a wide range of explanations, such as facilitation or selection
of constraint elements, become possible because “reasons for” certain behaviors indicate
motives that induce consumers’ favorable perceptions or attitudes (Westaby, 2005). Thus,
“reasons for” rejecting innovation are not necessarily opposite to “reasons for” accepting
innovation (Sahu et al., 2020).
Sivathanu (2018b) proposed that relative advantages, compatibility and environment
protection play critical roles in determining users’ blockchain adoption. “Relative
advantages” are defined as the degree to which an alternative product is perceived to be
superior to the product being replaced (Claudy et al., 2015). Consumers compare products in
various stores before purchasing and that they make more positive choices when they find
comparative advantages in terms of price, diversity and convenience (Gupta and Arora,
2017). “Compatibility” is defined as the degree to which an alternative product is consistent
with the existing values and needs of potential adopters (Claudy et al., 2015). Sivathanu
(2018a) stated that compatibility is one of the main reasons for choosing internet of things
(IoT) wearables, which leads to the formation of a positive attitude by providing
convenience in measuring health status. “Environmental protection” means energy saving,
pollution reduction and product life extension (Dhir et al., 2021). The same study
documented that environmental benefits make consumers form favorable attitudes toward
waste recycling. Consequently, the existing literature has posited that because reasons focus
on the cognition used to explain people’s behavior, “reasons for” are necessarily helpful for
the formation of positive attitudes.
JHTT “Reasons against” a certain behavior refers to resistance or barriers that cause negative
15,1 attitudes (Tufail et al., 2022). This study references the existing literature addressing
“reasons against”, which consists of usage barriers, risk barriers and traditional barriers
(Sivathanu, 2018a). “Usage barriers” are the degree to which changes to consumers’ daily
lives are required (Ram and Sheth, 1989). Pillai and Sivathanu (2018) stated that usage
barriers and traditional barriers are the main reasons for opposing e-learning adoption.
142 “Risk barriers” are defined as the degree of uncertainty related to financial, functional and
social outcomes (Herzenstein et al., 2007). Sivathanu (2018a) demonstrated that risk barriers
were the biggest negative attitude-inducing variable in the context of IOT-based medical
wearables adoption. “Traditional barriers” are the degree to which consumers are made to
accept cultural changes (Herbig and Day, 1992). Gupta and Arora (2017) stated that
traditional barriers were the most critical among “reasons against” mobile-banking in
forming negative attitudes. Dhir et al. (2021) noted that “reasons for” e-waste had positive
effects on attitudes toward recycling, whereas “reasons against” e-waste had negative
effects:

H3. F&B managers’ perceived “reasons for” blockchain adoption positively affect
attitudes.
H4. F&B managers’ perceived “reasons against” blockchain adoption negatively affect
attitudes.
Existing literature has confirmed that various reasons for and against adoption have a
significant effect on individuals’ behavioral intentions. Specifically, relative advantages (Pillai
and Sivathanu, 2018), compatibility (Sivathanu, 2018a) and environment protection (Claudy
et al., 2015) have provided strong support for their positive impact on adoption intentions.
Contrarily, the sub-factors of “reasons against” such as usage barriers (Pillai and Sivathanu,
2018), risk barriers (Sivathanu, 2018a) and traditional barriers (Pillai and Sivathanu, 2018;
Sivathanu, 2018a) have been well demonstrated as having a negative effect on adoption
intentions. From a holistic perspective, Dhir et al. (2021) noted that reasons for e-waste had
positive effects on intentions to recycle, but reasons against e-waste had negative effects:

H5. F&B managers’ perceived “reasons for” blockchain adoption positively affect
adoption intentions.
H6. F&B managers’ perceived “reasons against” blockchain adoption negatively affect
adoption intentions.

Blockchain adoption intentions driven by attitudes

This study anticipates that as consumers recognize the values of blockchain technology and
form positive attitudes, the more they become to use the technology. According to Sharma
et al. (2021), consumer attitudes enhanced their behavioral intentions toward food delivery
applications. Esfahbodi et al. (2022) found that the factors that affect users’ intentions to
introduce blockchains are their positive attitudes toward cost reduction and traceability:

H7. F&B managers’ attitudes positively affect blockchain adoption intentions.

Moderating roles of supply chain partnerships

“Supply chain partnerships (SCPs)” refer to a strategic relationship between business
partners, which a key factor linked to management success (Alsetoohy et al., 2019). When a
cordial relationship is formed through joint efforts between partners, mutual benefits are Blockchain
improved (Mandal, 2019). As supply chains have become more complex, SCPs are adoption
considered as being more important in improving business operations (Alananzeh et al.,
2017). Gallear et al. (2012) confirmed the pivotal roles of SCPs in augmenting organizations’
strategic and operational competencies, enabling them to achieve market-oriented goals
alongside financial targets. Hida Syahchari et al. (2022) provided empirical evidence
demonstrating that SCPs offer well-rounded insights and valuable information, leading to
heightened cost efficiency and flexibility for both buyers and suppliers. 143
The importance of SCPs has been addressed specifically within the context of innovation
adoption. Oke et al. (2013) documented that companies can adopt new innovative technologies
more effectively by their strong SCPs. Particularly, Benitez et al. (2022) analyzed the
relationship between competitive outcomes for technology adoption, adding SCPs as a
moderator. As a result, expanding technology provision improved customer loyalty and
innovation, and SCPs helped to promote long-term innovation. Therefore, this study anticipates
discovering the moderating effect of SCPs within the BRT context (Figure 1):

H8 (a
e). SCPs play significant moderating roles between reasoning variables (reasons
for and against), attitudes and adoption intentions.

Method
Data collection and participants
A quantitative approach was adopted to validate the studied hypotheses. An online panel
survey was employed to obtain data for this study due to its recognized effectiveness in
obtaining reliable and quality business panel samples (Göritz, 2007). A leading panel survey
company based in South Korea, Embrain (Macromill Group), was commissioned to collect
responses from F&B managers with three or more years of working experience in the
industry. To select only qualified and eligible participants for obtaining accurate responses,
five screening questions (true or false) were used to assess their knowledge regarding
blockchain technology (e.g. “Blockchains are a distributed databased of records or public

Figure 1.
Research framework
JHTT ledger shared among multiple independent stakeholders”). Potential respondents who
15,1 provided wrong answers to any of the screening items were excluded as being considered
unqualified for participation in the main study.
This process generated 328 useable responses with no missing values. Our sample had
slightly more males (50.6%) than females. The largest segment of respondents represented
individuals between 30 and 39 years of age (29.3%), followed by respondents with reported
144 being in their 40s (26.8%), 50s (24.1%) and 20s (19.8%). All respondents have had an
employment tenure of more than five years, with the distribution of job roles as follows:
R&D director (34.8%), financial manager (18.3%), sales manager (21.7%) or product and
service quality manager (25.2%). On average, the sample F&B companies reported that they
had more than 200 employees with annual sales of US$7.7m.

Measures
The first two constructs of our survey instrument, “personal value/belief for new
technology” and “openness to change” were evaluated using eight items (four for each
construct) by replicating the scale measures of Claudy et al. (2015) and Sivathanu (2018a).
Regarding the sub-dimensions of “reasons for,” “relative advantages,” (four items)
“compatibility” (three items) and “environmental protection” (four items) were measured
using 11 items These items were slightly modified from prior relevant studies (Dhir et al.,
2021; Pillai and Sivathanu, 2018; Sivathanu, 2018a) to ensure their appropriate applicability
within the study context. Another three sub-dimensions of “reasons against” (“usage
barriers,” “risk barriers” and “traditional barriers”) were measured using nine items (three
items each) adapted from prior studies (Dhir et al., 2021; Sivathanu, 2018a). The survey’s
third section assessed “attitudes” (four items) and “adoption intentions” (three items) based
on Gupta and Arora (2017) and Sivathanu (2018a). Finally, to assess “supply chain
partnerships,” the four scale measures were adapted from Naghshineh and Lotfi (2019).
Respondents were asked to provide their socio-demographic characteristics and their
working experiences.

Results
Validity and reliability of the measurements
To assess the validity and reliability of the measures, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
was conducted as presented in Table 1. The CFA fit statistics provided an acceptable model
fit (x2/df ¼ 1.627, p < 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.053; TLI ¼ 0.955; CFI ¼ 0.961; IFI ¼ 0.961; RMSEA ¼
0.044). All standardized loading values were larger than 0.70. All values of composite
construct reliability (CCR) were greater than 0.80, and all values of average variance
extracted (AVE) were larger than 0.60, which meet the recommended threshold levels.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients showed a distribution of 0.770–0.931, supporting the internal
consistency of our data. Thus, convergent validity was verified (Hair et al., 2018).
The lowest square root of AVE (0.822) was larger than the greatest correlation coefficient
(0.794), demonstrating that observed variables of latent constructs were not highly related to
each other (Table 2). Thus, discriminant validity was supported (Hair et al., 2018).

Results of H1–H7
A second-order structural equation model was developed to test our hypotheses. “Relative
advantages,” “compatibility” and “environmental protection” as first-order factors were
used as the sub-dimensions of “reasons for.” Also, “reasons against” was used as a second-
order construct that comprised the sub-dimensions including “usage barriers,” “risk
barriers” and “traditional barriers.”
 Blockchain
Standardized Cronbach’s
Construct loadings t-value CCR AVE alpha
adoption
Personal value for new technology 0.932 0.775 0.931
I always look for new technology 0.822 Fixed
I look for adventure 0.925 21.408
I like to experience new technology 0.929 21.537
I am open to new technology 0.839 18.336 145
Openness to change 0.906 0.708 0.914
I always look for new things to do 0.778 Fixed
I am a risk taker 0.767 19.588
I like to experience new things 0.894 17.802
I am open to new experiences 0.917 18.248
Relative advantages (Blockchains
) 0.913 0.724 0.912
Are more effective than other technologies to
improve our operations 0.839 Fixed
Take less time and effort for monitoring our
operations 0.831 18.442
Reduce our operational costs 0.839 18.756
Offer greater value to manage our operations
effectively 0.892 20.716
Compatibility (Blockchains
) 0.905 0.761 0.904
Fit well with F&B operational processes 0.880 Fixed
Fit well with F&B supply chain infrastructure 0.894 22.595
Are compatible with the existing technology
Infrastructure that F&B supply chains
commonly use 0.842 20.221
Environmental protection (Blockchains
) 0.903 0.700 0.902
Improve environmental protection 0.866 Fixed
Reduce global environmental harm 0.820 18.941
Improve our sustainable performance 0.851 20.216
Contribute to food waste reduction 0.808 18.475
Usage barriers (Blockchains
) 0.861 0.675 0.856
Require extra technical skills to use 0.721 Fixed
Are not easy to use 0.887 14.464
Are difficult and cumbersome to use 0.848 14.200
Risk barriers (Blockchains
) 0.884 0.722 0.770
May not be safe and secure 0.874 Fixed
Can share our internally sensitive data with
others 0.682 14.518
May not provide its expected benefits 0.968 22.413
Traditional barriers (Our current technology
system
) 0.892 0.734 0.890
Is convenient 0.881 Fixed
Is satisfactory 0.886 19.485
Is adequate 0.800 17.443 Table 1.
(continued) Confirmatory factor
analysis
JHTT
Standardized Cronbach’s
15,1 Construct loadings t-value CCR AVE alpha

Attitudes (Blockchain adoption
) 0.900 0.692 0.908

Is a great idea 0.863 Fixed
Has great value 0.864 20.016
146 Can provide many benefits 0.797 17.454
Can add lot of value to my work 0.802 17.661
Blockchain adoption intentions 0.876 0.703 0.872
I will try to use blockchain technology for my
work 0.848 Fixed
I can see myself using blockchain technology 0.877 19.607
I intend to use blockchain technology in the
future 0.788 16.752
Supply chain partnerships 0.909 0.714 0.907
We and our supply partners share important
information effectively 0.830 Fixed
We and our supply partners help each other in
solving problems 0.877 19.289
We collaborate with our supply partners
effectively 0.867 18.969
We have a close relationship with our supply
partners 0.803 16.940
Notes: x /df ¼ 1.627; p < 0.001; RMR ¼ 0.053; TLI ¼ 0.955; CFI ¼ 0.961; IFI ¼ 0.961; RMSEA ¼ 0.044;
2

CCR = composite construct reliability; AVE = average variance extracted

Table 1. Source: Authors’ own creation

As presented in Figure 2, the SEM model fit (x2/df ¼ 1.772, p < 0.001; TLI ¼ 0.934; CFI ¼
0.940; IFI ¼ 0.941; RMSEA ¼ 0.049) was acceptable. “Personal value/belief” had a positive
effect on “reasons for” (b ¼ 0.323***), but its effect on “reasons against” was not significant
(b ¼ –0.098 ns). Similarly, “openness to change” was found to significantly improve “reasons
for” (b ¼ 0.360***), while it did not significantly affect “reasons against” (b ¼ 0.080 ns). H1a
and H2a were supported, however H1b and H2b were not supported.
“Reasons for” had a positive effect on “attitudes” (b ¼ 0.738***), however “reasons
against” had no significant effect on “attitudes” (b ¼ –0.073 ns). Additionally, “reasons for”
significantly increased “adoption intentions” (b ¼ 0.197*), whereas “reasons against” did not
have such an effect (b ¼ –0.046 ns). However, a contrasting result, also reported by Delgosha
and Hajiheydari (2020), discovered that “reasons against” had a greater impact on both
attitude and behavioral intentions toward on-demand service platform adoption. These
conflicting findings propose that psychological process involved in perceiving reasons “for”
and “against” are contingent upon the specific contexts of the studies conducted. H3 and H5
were supported, but H4 and H6 were not supported. Finally, “attitudes” increased
blockchain “adoption intentions” (b ¼ 0.661***), supporting H7.

Testing of H8: moderating effects of supply chain partnerships

To verify the moderating effects of “supply chain partnerships (SCPs)” in our research
framework, a multi-group analysis was conducted. Using the media score (4.63) of SCPs, our
respondents were equally divided into two groups respondents (n ¼ 164 in the low group
and n ¼ 164 in the high group).
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean SD

1.Personal value/belief 0.880 5.645 1.046

2.Openness to change 0.422** 0.841 4.848 1.020
3.Relative advantages 0.430** 0.446** 0.851 4.932 0.945
4.Compatibility 0.363** 0.336** 0.726** 0.872 4.892 1.047
5.Environmental protection 0.401** 0.384** 0.779** 0.792** 0.837 4.932 0.945
6.Usage barriers 0.054 0.073 0.121* 0.074 0.042 0.822 4.660 1.034
7.Risk barriers 0.027 0.082 0.043 0.039 0.012 0.540** 0.849 4.235 0.986
8.Traditional barriers 0.004 0.121* 0.154** 0.150** 0.182** 0.006 0.123* 0.857 4.283 1.033
9.Attitudes 0.363** 0.369** 0.580** 0.632** 0.646** 0.005 0.061 0.011 0.832 4.833 0.895
10.Adoption intentions 0.322** 0.542** 0.551** 0.532** 0.546** 0.046 0.041 0.073 0.736** 0.838 4.804 0.901
11.Supply chain partnerships 0.307** 0.603** 0.556** 0.420** 0.461** 0.113* 0.130* 0.211** 0.304** 0.455** 0.845 4.636 1.145

Notes: Diagonal lines = square root of AVE; bottom of the diagonal line = correlation coefficients; S.D. = standard deviation; **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
Source: Authors’ own creation

Table 2.
Blockchain

Discriminant validity
147

and correlations
adoption
JHTT
15,1

148

Figure 2.
Results of testing
H1
H7

Results presented in Table 3 revealed that although the effect of “reasons for” on “attitudes”
was significant in both low (b ¼ 0.532***) and high (b ¼ 0.803***) group, its effect in the high
SCPs group was statistically stronger [Dx2(1) ¼ 6.001*]. Contrarily, the effect of “reasons
against” on “attitudes” was not significantly affected [Dx2(1) ¼ 0.477 ns] by levels of SCPs
(low group: b ¼ 0.118 ns and high group: b ¼ 0.012 ns). Hence, H8a was supported, but
H8b was not supported.
The relationship between “reasons for” and “adoption intentions” was found to be greater in
the high SCPs group (b ¼ 0.419***) than in the low SCPs group (b ¼ 0.194 ns). This difference
was proven to be significant [Dx2(1)¼19.302***]. However, the difference in the effects of
“reasons against” on “adoption intentions” between the low SCPs group (b ¼ 0.069 ns) and

Supply chain partnerships

Low (n ¼ 164) High (n ¼ 164)
Relationships Coefficient t-value Coefficient t-value x2 difference Results

H8a. Reasons for ! Attitudes 0.532 5.503*** 0.803 8.278*** Dx (1) ¼ 6.001*
2
Supported
H8b. Reasons against ! 0.118 1.139 0.012 0.170 Dx2(1) ¼ 0.477ns Not
Attitudes supported
H8c. Reasons for ! Adoption 0.194 2.133* 0.419 3.906*** Dx2(1) ¼ 19.302*** Supported
intentions
H8d. Reasons against ! 0.069 0.948 0.093 1.396 Dx2(1) ¼ 0.697ns Not
Adoption intentions supported
H8e. Attitudes ! Adoption 0.450 4.312*** 0.944 7.398*** Dx2(1) ¼ 9.885** Supported
Table 3. intentions
Results of testing the Notes: Baseline model fit = x2/df ¼ 1.573; p < 0.001; TLI ¼ 0.917; CFI ¼ 0.924; IFI ¼ 0.925; RMSEA ¼
moderating variable 0.042; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
(H8a
e) Source: Authors’ own creation
high SCPs group (b ¼ 0.093 ns) was not significant [Dx2(1) ¼ 0.697 ns]. H8c was supported, Blockchain
however H8d was not supported. adoption
Finally, the effect of “attitudes” and “adoption intentions” was more positive [Dx2(1) ¼ 9.885**]
in the high SCPs group (b ¼ 0.944***) than in the low SCPs group (b ¼ 0.450***). Thus, H8e was
supported.

149
Supplementary analysis
This study conducted an additional analysis to understand the detailed and profound
mechanisms of the sub-dimensions of reasoning variables and their association with the
study constructs (Figure 3). Regarding the sub-dimensions of “reasons for,” “compatibility”
(b ¼ 0.290*), “environmental protection” (b ¼ 0.396**) except for “relative advantages” (b ¼
0.092 ns) significantly improved “attitudes.”
However, only “traditional barriers” (b ¼ 0.119**) as one sub-dimension of “reasons
against” had a negative effect on “attitudes” while the other two sub-dimensions [“usage
barriers” (b ¼ 0.083 ns) and “risk barriers” (b ¼ 0.008 ns)] did not show such an effect.
Additionally, only one sub-dimension of “reasons for,” “relative advantages” significantly
improved “adoption intentions” (b ¼ 0.332***). However, the other two sub-factors of

Figure 3.
Supplementary
analysis results
JHTT “reasons for” and all three “reasons against” dimensions did not significantly influence
15,1 “adoption intention.”

Conclusions and implications

Conclusions
Sustainable and innovative practices have become essential for the F&B industry due to
150 their massive impact specific to the environment and societal well-being. Blockchain
technology is gaining attention for its potential to enhance environmental practices through
transparent supply chain processes. However, its adoption remains limited in the F&B
industry. This study applied the BRT to investigate the factors influencing blockchain
adoption in F&B businesses. Our research framework encompassed both “reasons for” and
“reasons against” blockchains in association with “attitudes,” which are the most powerful
predictor of adoption behavior. More importantly, this study assessed SCPs for the potential
moderating effects within the BRT context because inter-firm cooperation is essential for
technology adoption and exploitation (Roxas et al., 2020).
This study documented that foodservice managers’ values/beliefs regarding new
technology and “openness to change” significantly improved “reasons for” but had no
significant impact on “reasons against.” This study provided empirical support for the
positive effect of “reasons for” on “attitudes” and “adoption intentions.” However, “reasons
against” had no significant impact on either “attitudes” or “adoption intentions.” These
findings indicate that “reasons for” blockchain adoption are not merely opposite to “reasons
against,” which calls for further investigation of the dichotomous nature of reasoning
variables by identifying conceptually distinct roles of reasons “for” and “against”
blockchain adoption within the F&B industry.
Our supplementary analysis revealed that “compatibility” and “environmental
protection” significantly improved “attitudes” while “traditional barriers” had a negative
impact on “attitudes.” Furthermore, only one factor, “relative advantages” had a significant
direct effect on “adoption intentions.” Our findings support the important role of “attitudes”
between reasoning variables and “adoption intentions.” More importantly, this study
revealed that SCPs enhanced the positive links of “reasons for–attitudes,” “reasons for–
adoption intentions” and “attitudes–adoption intentions.”

Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the technology adoption literature within the F&B context by
applying BRT as a theoretical lens to investigate the roles of the dichotomous dimensions of
reasoning factors in blockchain adoption. This study incorporated both “reasons for” and
“reasons against” which have been rarely addressed in the F&B literature particularly
concerning blockchain adoption.
Findings revealed that “reasons for” had a stronger impact on “attitudes” than “reasons
against.” This discovery aligns with the research conducted by Cozzio et al. (2023), which
demonstrates that blockchain technology enhances consumer attitudes due to the improved
traceability in the food supply chain. This heightened trust, in turn, has a positive impact on
consumer attitudes and behaviors within the F&B sector. However, this result is
inconsistent with prior literature demonstrating that “reasons against” had a more
significantly negative influence on behavioral decisions than “reasons for” in the contexts of
on-demand service platforms (Delgosha and Hajiheydari, 2020) and sub-optimal quality food
consumption (Tufail et al., 2022). Relying on prior scholars’ argument (Claudy et al., 2015;
Sahu et al., 2020) that BRT supports context-specific behavioral decision-making, this study
concluded that our reasoning variables regarding blockchain adoption within the F&B
context showed contingent impacts. “Reasons against” blockchain adoption did not merely Blockchain
act as the direct opposite of “reasons for” within the F&B context. This finding challenges adoption
the commonly held assumption that “reasons for” and “reasons against” have opposing
effect on attitudes and adoption intentions.
Our supplementary analysis revealed that “traditional barriers” played the logically
opposite role of “reasons for” including “compatibility” and “environmental protection” in
forming positive attitudes. Accordingly, this study was able to identify more salient
reasoning factors associated with “attitudes” and “adoption intentions” by comparing their 151
relative influential power with one another. Results provide empirical evidence that F&B
employees who perceive high environmental benefits of blockchains have more positive
attitudes, ultimately leading to greater adoption intentions.
Findings suggests that traditional barriers are the greatest barrier to blockchain adoption in
the F&B industry. A similar finding was uncovered by Jang et al. (2023). They elucidated that
traditional barriers amplify the challenges associated with adopting blockchain in the
foodservice industry. The labor-intensive nature of foodservice businesses may lead to their
high reluctance to adopt innovation. This study provides a plausible explanation for the slow
diffusion of blockchains in the F&B industry due to satisfaction with the status quo (Dadkhah
et al., 2022). However, “usage barriers” and “risk barriers” perceived by F&B managers did not
significantly affect attitudes. F&B employees may lack knowledge of blockchains and are
hardly trained for its implementation (Filimonau and Naumova, 2020). Despite these
challenges, F&B employees may consider those obstacles to be easily overcome through
educational programs and may not necessarily hold negative attitudes toward blockchains.
Sahu et al. (2020) pointed out a lack of empirical investigation of moderation within BRT
and highlighted the importance of including other external factors to expand the existing
knowledge regarding the relational mechanisms of the original constructs of BRT. This
study aimed to fill this gap by incorporating SCPs into our framework. This approach
enables us to expand the theoretical underpinning of BRT and gain insights into how
external parties influence decision-making processes regarding blockchain adoption in the
F&B industry. Thus, SCPs for their potential moderating roles was tested within the BRT
constructs. This study provides scientific evidence that SCPs strengthen the positive
relationships between “reasons for,” “attitudes” and “adoption intentions,” while their effects
were insignificant within the linkages of “reasons against,” “attitudes” and “adoption
intentions.”
Kaya and Azaltun (2012) reported that strong partnerships are critical for small-medium
enterprises because SCPs facilitate the effective communication of mutual goals and collaboration.
SCPs play a critical role in blockchain adoption by sharing similar business goals and improving a
mutual commitment to sustainable operations throughout the entire supply chain stages. Our
approach can serve as a theoretical basis for further exploration of other external factors that may
significantly influence responses to environmental damage in the F&B industry.

Managerial implications
Findings indicate that developing effective promotional strategies is essential to emphasize
the benefits of blockchains specifically for F&B enterprises. The environmental benefits
should be highlighted regarding the enormous impact that the F&B industry has upon the
environment, which has received great attention by the global community. Governments
can support F&B businesses to adopt blockchains by using a wide range of policy
interventions and providing blockchain performance such as increased resource efficiency
and reduced environmental pollution. Governments or public institutions need to provide
more opportunities for F&B enterprises to obtain loans and grants for sustainable
JHTT investments in blockchain adoption along with tax benefits and other financial incentives
15,1 for sustainable business practices.
Once F&B enterprises fully recognize the benefits of blockchains, their resistance to
blockchains can be more effectively overcome. The successful introduction of blockchains
would be the most important step in educating F&B employees about the beneficial roles of
blockchains in improving immediate and future environmental quality. Effective
152 promotional strategies should be developed by highlighting a favorable adoption condition
where blockchains are compatible with their current technology systems.
F&B managers should improve frequent communication and joint actions with business
partners to create innovative ideas for better green practices. A well-structured
communication channel would be critical to share similar business visions and goals among
supply chain members to build strong SCPs. This is beneficial to encourage F&B employees
to learn about new technology, thereby becoming more willing to accept blockchain
technology. Furthermore, the development of interorganizational trust through their strong
partnerships would be crucial to heighten business performance through blockchains. To
build trust in the supply chain, it is necessary to identify their partners’ best interests and
demonstrate mutual respect for their inter-firm relationship.

Limitations and future research

This study was limited to the Korean F&B market and its managers. Thus, future work
should replicate our research framework using more robust samples to improve the external
validity of our findings. Another limitation of this study is involved in the use of the sub-
dimensions of reasoning variables related to blockchain adoption identified based on the
existing relevant literature. Therefore, a qualitative approach using focus group in-depth
interviews is required to obtain a better and deeper understanding of blockchain adoption
for the F&B industry. Prior experience with blockchain technology can significantly
influence adoption decision-making. This aspect has been overlooked in this study. Future
studies should incorporate prior usage experience to better understand its potentially
important impact within the context of blockchain adoption for F&B businesses.

References
Alananzeh, O., Algiatheen, N., Ryati, R., Albayyari, R. and Tarhini, A. (2017), “The impact of
employee’s perception of implementing green supply chain management on hotel’s economic
and operational performance”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 8 No. 3.
Al-Aomar, R. and Hussain, M. (2017), “An assessment of green practices in a hotel supply chain: a
study of UAE hotels”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 32, pp. 71-81.
Ali, A., Rasoolimanesh, S.M. and Cobanoglu, C. (2020), “Technology in tourism and hospitality to
achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs)”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 177-181.
Alsetoohy, O., Ayoun, B., Arous, S., Megahed, F. and Nabil, G. (2019), “Intelligent agent technology:
what affects its adoption in hotel food supply chain management?”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Technology, Vol. 10 No. 3.
Benitez, G.B., Ferreira-Lima, M., Ayala, N.F. and Frank, A.G. (2022), “Industry 4.0 technology provision:
the moderating role of supply chain partners to support technology providers”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 89-112.
Buhalis, D., Papathanassis, A. and Vafeidou, M. (2022), “Smart cruising: smart technology applications
and their diffusion in cruise tourism”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 13 No. 4.
Claudy, M.C., Garcia, R. and O’Driscoll, A. (2015), “Consumer resistance to innovation – a behavioural Blockchain
reasoning perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 528-544.
adoption
Cozzio, C., Viglia, G., Lemarie, L. and Cerutti, S. (2023), “Toward an integration of blockchain
technology in the food supply chain”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 162, p. 113909.
Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F.N. and Leip, A.J. (2021), “Food systems
are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions”, Nature Food, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 198-209.
153
Dadkhah, M., Rahimnia, F. and Filimonau, V. (2022), “Evaluating the opportunities, challenges and
risks of applying the blockchain technology in tourism: a delphi study approach”, Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 13 No. 5.
Delgosha, M.S. and Hajiheydari, N. (2020), “On-demand service platforms pro/anti adoption cognition:
examining the context-specific reasons”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 121, pp. 180-194.
Dhir, A., Koshta, N., Goyal, R.K., Sakashita, M. and Almotairi, M. (2021), “Behavioral reasoning theory
(BRT) perspectives on E-waste recycling and management”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 280 No. 1, p. 124269.
EPA (2022), “International efforts on wasted food recovery”, United States Environmental Protection Agency
News, available at: www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/international-efforts-wasted-food-recovery
Esfahbodi, A., Pang, G. and Peng, L. (2022), “Determinants of consumers’ adoption intention for
blockchain technology in E-commerce”, Journal of Digital Economy, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 89-101.
Filimonau, V. and Naumova, E. (2020), “The blockchain technology and the scope of its application
in hospitality operations”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 87,
p. 102383.
Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. and Belief, A. (1975), Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gallear, D., Ghobadian, A. and Chen, W. (2012), “Corporate responsibility, supply chain partnership and
performance: an empirical examination”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 83-91.
Göritz, A.S. (2007), “Using online panels in psychological research”, The Oxford Handbook of Internet
Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 473-485.
Gupta, A. and Arora, N. (2017), “Understanding determinants and barriers of mobile shopping adoption
using behavioral reasoning theory”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 36, pp. 1-7.
Hair, J., Black, W., Anderson, R. and Babin, B. (2018), “Multivariate data analysis (8, illustrated.)”,
Cengage Learning EMEA, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 1951-1980.
Herbig, P.A. and Day, R.L. (1992), “Customer acceptance: the key to successful introductions of
innovations”, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-15.
Herzenstein, M., Posavac, S.S. and Brakus, J.J. (2007), “Adoption of new and really new products: the effects
of self-regulation systems and risk salience”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 251-260.
Hida Syahchari, D., Sudrajat, D., Lasmy, L., Grace Herlina, M., Estefania, F. and Van Zanten, E. (2022),
“Achieving supply chain resilience through supply chain risk management and supply chain
partnership”, In 2022 5th International Conference on Computers in Management and Business
(ICCMB), pp. 209-212.
Jang, H.W., Yoo, J.J.E. and Cho, M. (2023), “Resistance to blockchain adoption in the foodservice
industry: moderating roles of public pressures and climate change awareness”, Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/
IJCHM-09-2022-1127.
Kaya, E. and Azaltun, M. (2012), “Role of information systems in supply chain management and its
application on five-star hotels in Istanbul”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 3 No. 2.
JHTT Kshetri, N. (2018), “Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 39, pp. 80-89.
15,1
Mandal, S. (2019), “Exploring the influence of IT capabilities on agility and resilience in tourism: moderating
role of technology orientation”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 10 No. 3.
Naghshineh, B. and Lotfi, M. (2019), “Enhancing supply chain resilience: an empirical investigation”,
Continuity and Resilience Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 47-62.
154 Oke, A., Prajogo, D.I. and Jayaram, J. (2013), “Strengthening the innovation chain: the role of internal
innovation climate and strategic relationships with supply chain partners”, Journal of Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 43-58.
Palamara, P. (2018), “Tracing and tracking with the blockchain”, Master Dissertation, Polytechnic
University of Milan.
Pillai, R. and Sivathanu, B. (2018), “An empirical study on the adoption of M-learning apps among IT/
ITeS employees”, Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 182-204.
Piramuthu, S., Farahani, P. and Grunow, M. (2013), “RFID-generated traceability for contaminated
product recall in perishable food supply networks”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 225 No. 2, pp. 253-262.
Ram, S. and Sheth, J.N. (1989), “Consumer resistance to innovations: the marketing problem and its
solutions”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 5-14.
Roxas, F.M.Y., Rivera, J.P.R. and Gutierrez, E.L. (2020), “Mapping stakeholders’ roles in governing sustainable
tourism destinations”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 45, pp. 387-398.
Sahu, A.K., Padhy, R.K. and Dhir, A. (2020), “Envisioning the future of behavioral decision-making: a
systematic literature review of behavioral reasoning theory”, Australasian Marketing Journal,
Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 145-159.
Sharma, R., Dhir, A., Talwar, S. and Kaur, P. (2021), “Over-ordering and food waste: the use of food delivery
apps during a pandemic”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 96, p. 102977.
Shirley, E. (2022), “Blockchain challenges in the food and beverage industry”, Clarkston Consulting
News, available at: https://clarkstonconsulting.com/insights/blockchain-challenges/
Singh, V. and Sharma, S.K. (2022), “Application of blockchain technology in shaping the future of food
industry based on transparency and consumer trust”, Journal of Food Science and Technology,
Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 1-18.
Singh, L.B. and Srivastava, S. (2021), “Linking workplace ostracism to turnover intention: a moderated
mediation approach”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 46, pp. 244-256.
Sivathanu, B. (2018a), “Adoption of internet of things (IOT) based wearables for healthcare of older
adults: a behavioural reasoning theory (BRT) approach”, Journal of Enabling Technologies,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 169-185.
Sivathanu, B. (2018b), “Adoption of online subscription beauty boxes: a behavioural reasoning theory
(BRT) perspective”, Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 19-40.
Tham, A. and Sigala, M. (2020), “Road block (chain): bit(coin)s for tourism sustainable development
goals?”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, Vol. 11 No. 2.
Thompson, B.S. and Rust, S. (2023), “Blocking blockchain: examining the social, cultural, and
institutional factors causing innovation resistance to digital technology in seafood supply
chains”, Technology in Society, Vol. 73, p. 102235.
Tufail, H.S., Yaqub, R., Alsuhaibani, A.M., Ramzan, S., Shahid, A.U. and Refat, M. (2022), “Consumers’
purchase intention of suboptimal food using behavioral reasoning theory: a food waste
reduction strategy”, Sustainability, Vol. 14 No. 14, p. 8905.
Wang, J., Shen, M. and Chu, M. (2021), “Why is green consumption easier said than done? Exploring the
green consumption attitude-intention gap in China with behavioral reasoning theory”, Cleaner
and Responsible Consumption, Vol. 2, p. 100015.
Westaby, J.D. (2005), “Behavioral reasoning theory: identifying new linkages underlying intentions and Blockchain
behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 97-120.
adoption
Yang, C., Lan, S., Zhao, Z., Zhang, M., Wu, W. and Huang, G.Q. (2022), “Edge-cloud blockchain and IoE-
enabled quality management platform for perishable supply chain logistics”, IEEE Internet of
Things Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 3264-3275.

Further reading
Chae, B., Yen, H.R. and Sheu, C. (2005), “Information technology and supply chain collaboration:
155
moderating effects of existing relationships between partners”, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 440-448.

Corresponding author
Meehee Cho can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]