ArticlePloS one2026
Selecting suitable entities to implement blockchain in green agricultural supply chains.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Blockchain implementation in green agricultural supply chains can be undertaken independently by manufacturers or retailers or jointly by both in industrial practices. However, most existing studies predesignate implementation entities artificially and largely ignore firms' endogenous economic willingness, which restricts the practical explanatory capability. Addressing this research gap, this study systematically explores firms' implementation willingness and the optimal selection of blockchain implementers in green agricultural supply chains, thereby offering targeted decision-making insights for blockchain policymakers and industrial practitioner. Four game-theoretic models are constructed involving entities: none, retailer-only, manufacturer-only, and both. By comparing the equilibrium outcomes of different game models, this study employs the dual thresholds of deployment costs and operational costs to quantitatively evaluate the economic willingness of supply chain entities to implement blockchain. Different from prior studies that treat blockchain implementers as exogenous and only consider a single cost dimension, this paper endogenizes firms' blockchain implementation decisions based on economic intentions and establishes a dual-cost threshold framework to categorize and identify the optimal implementer under different scenarios, and illustrate the results with a case study. The key findings are concluded as follows. First, economic willingness varies within thresholds. Manufacturers and retailers may take the initiative to implement blockchain regardless of their partners' behavior, or act reactively by following their partners; beyond the thresholds, they refuse to implement it. Second, entity selection varies across scenarios. Under moderately high dual costs, independent retailer implementation is optimal; under balanced costs, manufacturers may implement alone. Extremely high operational costs lead to no willing implementer, while extremely high deployment costs require joint implementation. Third, the likelihood of implementation modes differs substantially within thresholds. The most likely scenario is retailers' independent implementation, the least likely is manufacturers' independent implementation, with joint implementation in between. Beyond these thresholds, no entity implements it at all, a situation accounting for over 50% in the case study. Methodologically, this paper applies global optimization rather than the local optimization strategy with fixed designated implementer settings in previous studies, effectively capturing the internal economic motivation driving voluntary blockchain implementation in green agricultural supply chains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.