Blockchain in Humanitarian Supply Chains: A Systematic Evidence Review of Operational Benefits, Adoption Barriers, and Implementation Strategies

1. Introduction

Humanitarian operations involve coordination among organisations that manage resources and information under crisis conditions, and the humanitarian literature has identified information, coordination and accountability as recurring operational concerns. (Hunt et al., 2022; Baharmand et al., 2021) Blockchain has consequently been examined as a technology that could support humanitarian operations through characteristics such as security, auditability, transparency and shared records. (Hunt et al., 2022; Saad et al., 2022) Proposed applications include humanitarian logistics, identity and personal-data management, communications, traceability and selected partnership or transaction processes. (Hunt et al., 2022; Saad et al., 2022; Saad et al., 2023)

Hunt et al. (2022) systematically reviewed 64 contributions on blockchain in humanitarian operations management and classified the literature into four areas: general blockchain applications, identity and personal-data management, humanitarian logistics and humanitarian communications. (Hunt et al., 2022) They found that most of the literature concentrated on potential benefits and adoption enablers or barriers, while relatively few applications had been tested in humanitarian field settings. (Hunt et al., 2022)

Subsequent studies have added more empirical and implementation-oriented evidence. Baharmand et al. (2021) examined the UK Humanitarian Supply Blockchain pilot through focus groups and semi-structured interviews with practitioners involved in the pilot. (Baharmand et al., 2021) Sahebi et al. (2020) used Fuzzy Delphi and Best-Worst Method techniques to identify and prioritise blockchain-adoption barriers in humanitarian supply chains. (Sahebi et al., 2020) Baharmand et al. (2021) developed and validated a design framework using humanitarian blockchain pilots in Jordan and Kenya and benchmarked it against a pilot in Vanuatu. (Baharmand et al., 2021) Maina et al. (2025) subsequently developed a blockchain-enabled humanitarian supply-chain framework using a mixed-method design with humanitarian stakeholders in Kenya. (Maina et al., 2025)

The purpose of this review is to synthesise this evidence around four questions. The first asks what operational benefits are reported; the second asks what barriers and risks constrain adoption; the third asks what implementation conditions are identified; and the fourth asks what evidence gaps remain, especially in resource-constrained and emerging-economy settings. (Hunt et al., 2022; Sahebi et al., 2020; Baharmand et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2025)

2. Review Methodology

2.1. Review Design

The review follows a systematic evidence-review structure and uses PRISMA 2020 as a reporting reference. PRISMA 2020 provides updated guidance for reporting systematic reviews, including the reporting of search and selection processes and review results. (Page et al., 2021) The present review is described as a systematic evidence review rather than an exhaustive database-registered systematic review because the research environment did not provide complete export files from proprietary bibliographic databases.

The search and synthesis therefore focus on identifiable academic publications, publisher records, academic repositories and authoritative humanitarian sources that could be independently verified. The review does not claim that its accessible web-indexed search captured every record indexed by Scopus or Web of Science.

2.2. Search Strategy

Searches were conducted on 21 August 2026 using combinations of blockchain or DLT terms with humanitarian supply-chain, humanitarian-logistics and humanitarian-operations terms. The core searches were: “blockchain” AND “humanitarian supply chain”; “blockchain” AND “humanitarian logistics”; “blockchain” AND humanitarian AND adoption AND barriers; “blockchain” AND humanitarian AND pilot; “blockchain” AND humanitarian AND traceability; “blockchain” AND humanitarian AND “smart contracts”; and “blockchain” AND humanitarian AND privacy or governance.

Reference chaining was then used to identify closely related studies and implementation evidence. The search was deliberately focused on humanitarian applications rather than cryptocurrency speculation or general blockchain finance.

2.3. Eligibility Criteria

• Studies were included when they directly examined blockchain/DLT in humanitarian operations, humanitarian logistics, humanitarian supply chains, humanitarian aid delivery, humanitarian identity or closely related humanitarian coordination and financial applications.
• Empirical studies, systematic or structured reviews, conceptual frameworks with clear humanitarian relevance, documented pilots and authoritative implementation evidence were eligible.
• Studies focused exclusively on cryptocurrency trading or speculation were excluded.
• General commercial supply-chain studies without meaningful humanitarian relevance were excluded from the primary synthesis, although broader logistics reviews were retained when they provided contextual evidence for humanitarian applications.
• Sources were excluded when publication identity, authorship or relevance could not be established with reasonable confidence.

2.4. Data Extraction and Synthesis

For each included source, the review extracted publication year, context, study type, application, reported benefits, reported barriers, implementation conditions and stated evidence gaps. The extracted evidence was organised into four analytical domains: operational benefits, adoption barriers and risks, implementation and governance, and evidence gaps. Because the studies use heterogeneous methods and outcomes, the synthesis is thematic rather than a statistical meta-analysis.

2.5. Evidence Weighting

Empirical pilot and case evidence was used primarily for claims about reported implementation experiences, systematic and scoping reviews were used to identify recurring patterns, conceptual studies were treated as proposals rather than proof of impact, and institutional sources were used to document operational implementation or guidance. This weighting is an interpretive procedure developed for this review.

3. Evidence Base

The evidence base contains systematic reviews, an empirical humanitarian blockchain pilot, an expert-based barrier-prioritisation study, a humanitarian blockchain design framework, a blockchain smart-contract study, a humanitarian supply-chain review, and a recent Kenya-based implementation framework. (Hunt et al., 2022; Baharmand et al., 2021; Sahebi et al., 2020; Baharmand et al., 2019; Saad et al., 2022; Maina et al., 2025)

Study	Year	Method	Application	Main finding	Evidence type
Hunt, Narayanan & Zhuang	2022	Systematic review	Humanitarian operations management	64 contributions; limited field testing reported.	Review
Baharmand, Maghsoudi & Coppi	2021	Focus groups + practitioner interviews	Humanitarian Supply Blockchain pilot	Drivers included accountability, visibility and traceability; barriers included skills, resources, privacy, regulation, scalability and governance.	Empirical pilot
Sahebi, Masoomi & Ghorbani	2020	Fuzzy Delphi + Best-Worst Method	Adoption barriers	14 barriers identified; 9 accepted; regulatory uncertainty, knowledge/training and sustainability cost were prominent.	Expert/MCDM
Baharmand & Comes	2019	Conceptual/analytical	Smart contracts and logistics partnerships	Smart contracts may support automation, transparency and efficiency; barriers were organisational, technological and environmental.	Conceptual
Baharmand, Saeed, Comes & Lauras	2021	Case studies + framework validation	Humanitarian blockchain project design	Framework emphasised infrastructure, end-users, ethics, stakeholders, privacy, scalability and organisational requirements.	Empirical framework
Saad et al.	2022	Systematic/structured review	Humanitarian supply chains	Trust, transparency and visibility were identified as key value areas; technical complexity and skills/training were important challenges.	Review
Maina, Saad, Perera & Bahadori	2025	Mixed-method framework study	Kenya humanitarian supply chain	Framework contains five phases and nine building blocks; awareness was identified as critical.	Empirical framework
Ben Othmen	2024	Systematic literature review	Humanitarian logistics transparency	Emerging technologies including blockchain are examined as potential mechanisms for improving transparency and information flow.	Review

4. Findings

4.1. Operational Benefits

Transparency, traceability, visibility, accountability and trust are the most recurrent value propositions in the reviewed humanitarian blockchain literature. (Hunt et al., 2022; Baharmand et al., 2021; Saad et al., 2022) The UK Humanitarian Supply Blockchain pilot specifically examined whether blockchain could improve transparency and trust and identified accountability, visibility, traceability, trust, collaboration, time efficiency, reduction of administrative work and cross-sector partnership as important drivers. (Baharmand et al., 2021)

Blockchain-based smart contracts have also been proposed for humanitarian-business partnerships involving logistics service providers. Baharmand and Comes (2019) argue that smart contracts may provide automation, transparency and efficiency and may facilitate partnerships when trust is low, while also identifying organisational, technological and environmental adoption barriers. (Baharmand & Comes, 2019)

Broader logistics research also associates blockchain applications with traceability, visibility and collaboration, providing contextual support for humanitarian applications, although evidence from general logistics settings should not be treated as direct evidence of humanitarian impact. (Pournader et al., 2020)

4.2. Trust, Accountability and Data Integrity

The humanitarian literature frequently connects blockchain with trust and accountability because shared records can improve the auditability of selected transactions and events. (Hunt et al., 2022; Saad et al., 2022) However, the technology does not independently establish that the information entered into a ledger is true or complete; the reliability of the resulting record depends on the processes, actors and technologies used to capture the underlying event. This latter statement is an analytical inference from the reviewed technology and implementation literature, rather than a direct empirical finding from a single study.

The distinction is important in humanitarian supply chains because physical events such as delivery, receipt and stock movement still require reliable observation and data capture before a blockchain record can be useful. (Baharmand et al., 2021; Saad et al., 2023)

4.3. Traceability and Logistics Visibility

Traceability is a recurring application area in humanitarian blockchain research. Saad et al. (2023) proposed a blockchain-based traceability system for humanitarian goods and resources, with the objective of supporting traceability, transparency and stakeholder collaboration. (Saad et al., 2023) The evidence from the Humanitarian Supply Blockchain pilot also indicates that visibility and traceability were among the principal drivers examined in an operational humanitarian setting. (Baharmand et al., 2021) These studies support the relevance of traceability as an application area, but they do not establish a universal improvement in humanitarian delivery performance.

4.4. Adoption Barriers and Risks

Regulatory uncertainty, lack of knowledge or employee training and high sustainability costs were identified as important blockchain-adoption barriers by Sahebi et al. (2020), whose study identified 14 barriers from the literature, accepted nine through Fuzzy Delphi analysis and then weighted them using the Best-Worst Method. (Sahebi et al., 2020)

The Humanitarian Supply Blockchain pilot likewise identified barriers involving skills and training, resources, privacy, regulation, scalability and governance. (Baharmand et al., 2021) A separate humanitarian blockchain design framework further emphasised infrastructure, end-users, ethics, stakeholders, privacy, scalability, knowledge and skills and intellectual property as design considerations. (Baharmand et al., 2021)

Technical complexity and insufficient knowledge, technical skills and training have also been identified in a review focused specifically on blockchain applications in humanitarian supply chains. (Saad et al., 2022) These findings indicate that adoption cannot be evaluated solely as a software-selection decision because organisational capability, governance and context influence implementation feasibility. The latter is a synthesis across the cited studies.

Privacy deserves particular attention because humanitarian blockchain projects can involve sensitive information and humanitarian principles impose protection obligations toward vulnerable populations. Baharmand et al. (2021) explicitly include ethics and privacy among the contextual design requirements for humanitarian blockchain projects. (Baharmand et al., 2021)

4.5. Implementation Evidence

Baharmand et al. (2021) developed a framework for designing humanitarian blockchain projects from evidence associated with pilots in Jordan and Kenya and benchmarked its applicability against a pilot in Vanuatu. (Baharmand et al., 2021) The framework identifies context-related requirements such as infrastructure, end-users, ethics, stakeholders and privacy; technology-related requirements such as scalability and mechanisms for network participation; and organisational requirements such as knowledge, skills and intellectual property. (Baharmand et al., 2021)

Maina et al. (2025) used an explanatory sequential mixed-method approach involving a feasibility survey of humanitarian stakeholders in Kenya followed by interviews to validate a proposed framework. (Maina et al., 2025) Their framework contains nine building blocks organised across five phases from initial planning to deployment and maturity, and the authors identify awareness as a particularly critical implementation phase. (Maina et al., 2025)

These studies provide a stronger basis for implementation guidance than purely conceptual blockchain proposals because they explicitly incorporate humanitarian stakeholder or pilot evidence. (Baharmand et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2025)

5. Discussion

The reviewed evidence supports a conditional rather than universal case for blockchain. Hunt et al. (2022) found that most blockchain research in humanitarian operations management had not been tested in the field, while the later pilot and implementation-framework studies add empirical evidence without eliminating the broader evidence gap. (Hunt et al., 2022; Baharmand et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2025)

A defensible selection criterion is therefore whether the humanitarian problem requires multiple independent organisations to maintain or verify a shared record and whether the additional governance and technical complexity is justified by the expected value. This criterion is a synthesis proposed by the author from the reviewed literature, not a tested decision rule.

The literature also indicates that humanitarian blockchain design must account for context and humanitarian principles rather than simply transferring commercial blockchain architectures into crisis environments. (Baharmand et al., 2021) This includes consideration of infrastructure, end-users, ethics, privacy, scalability, stakeholder roles and organisational capabilities. (Baharmand et al., 2021)

6. Proposed Implementation Framework

The following eight-stage pathway is proposed by this review as a synthesis of recurring requirements in the literature; it is not itself empirically validated. The sequence is derived from the design requirements and implementation phases reported by Baharmand et al. (2021) and Maina et al. (2025).

1. Problem diagnosis: Define the humanitarian coordination, traceability or information problem and establish a baseline. (Baharmand et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2025)

2. Technology justification: Compare blockchain with conventional information systems before adoption; this is a review-derived decision principle rather than a directly tested rule.

3. Stakeholder and governance design: Define participating organisations, roles, permissions, accountability and governance arrangements. (Baharmand et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2025)

4. Privacy and architecture design: Address privacy, infrastructure, scalability and network participation during architecture design. (Baharmand et al., 2021)

5. Pilot deployment: Use a bounded humanitarian use case and evaluate the implementation before wider deployment. The emphasis on pilots follows the field-based literature. (Hunt et al., 2022; Baharmand et al., 2021)

6. Capacity building: Address knowledge, skills and awareness requirements identified as barriers or implementation conditions. (Sahebi et al., 2020; Saad et al., 2022; Maina et al., 2025)

7. Evaluation: Compare implementation outcomes against the baseline and assess operational, organisational and governance consequences. This is a review-derived recommendation.

8. Controlled scaling: Expand only after feasibility, governance, user capability and contextual requirements have been addressed. (Baharmand et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2025)

7. Research Gaps

The clearest evidence gap is the limited amount of field-tested evidence relative to the size of the conceptual literature. Hunt et al. (2022) reported that, with only a few pilot programmes, most of the literature they reviewed had not been tested in humanitarian field settings. (Hunt et al., 2022) Later pilot and framework studies demonstrate progress, but they do not constitute a large comparative evidence base. (Baharmand et al., 2021; Maina et al., 2025)

A second gap concerns context-specific implementation. The 2025 Kenya study demonstrates that implementation frameworks can be developed around the conditions of a particular humanitarian environment, while Baharmand et al. (2021) show that design requirements vary across humanitarian contexts. (Maina et al., 2025; Baharmand et al., 2021) Further comparative research across African and other resource-constrained settings would therefore help establish which requirements are context-specific and which are more general.

A third gap concerns comparative evaluation against conventional digital systems. The reviewed literature contains many claims about potential value, but the evidence base remains insufficient to establish that blockchain is consistently superior to conventional alternatives across humanitarian outcomes. (Hunt et al., 2022; Saad et al., 2022) A fourth gap concerns long-term organisational sustainability, including skills, governance and ongoing costs, which appear repeatedly as adoption concerns but require more longitudinal evidence. (Sahebi et al., 2020; Baharmand et al., 2021)

8. Limitations

The principal limitation is the search environment. The review used accessible web-indexed academic and publisher sources rather than direct database exports from Scopus, Web of Science or comparable proprietary indexes. Consequently, the manuscript does not claim exhaustive coverage of all indexed publications.

A second limitation is evidence heterogeneity. The synthesis combines systematic reviews, empirical pilot research, expert-based barrier analysis, conceptual work and implementation frameworks, which makes quantitative pooling inappropriate.

A third limitation is that several conclusions in this review are thematic syntheses or author-proposed implementation principles rather than findings tested by a single empirical study. These statements have been explicitly identified as synthesis or inference where relevant.

9. Conclusions

The reviewed literature supports blockchain as a potentially useful technology for selected humanitarian supply-chain problems involving transparency, traceability, visibility, accountability, trust and inter-organisational coordination. (Hunt et al., 2022; Baharmand et al., 2021; Saad et al., 2022) The evidence does not, however, support treating blockchain as an automatic solution to humanitarian supply-chain problems because adoption barriers involving regulation, skills, training, sustainability costs, privacy, infrastructure, scalability and governance remain significant. (Sahebi et al., 2020; Baharmand et al., 2021; Baharmand et al., 2021)

The strongest research direction is therefore not simply to ask whether blockchain can be deployed, but to determine when its shared-ledger characteristics produce value that justifies its additional technical and governance requirements. This conclusion is a synthesis of the reviewed evidence. Future research should test such decision criteria and implementation frameworks through comparative field studies, particularly in emerging and resource-constrained humanitarian contexts. (Hunt et al., 2022; Maina et al., 2025)