Leveraging Blockchain Technology to Improve Transparency and Resilience in the Humanitarian Sector - Chapter 1

Introduction

In humanitarian response, what often fails first is not logistics but trust, coordination, and timely information. The humanitarian community—including UN agencies, NGOs, donors, local responders, and coordination platforms—operates in fragile environments marked by conflict, displacement, and disaster. These actors frequently rely on fragmented systems, siloed data, and limited real-time visibility (Moshtari, 2016; Balcik et al., 2010).

Coordination failures—such as duplicated aid and delayed decisions—have occurred in major crises including Darfur, the Haiti earthquake (2010), the Syrian conflict (2011–), the rise of ISIS (2014–2019), Ebola (2014–2020), COVID-19 (2020–2022), and recent emergencies in Sudan and Haiti (Besiou, Pedraza-Martinez and Van Wassenhove, 2016; Thomas and Kopczak, 2005; UN OCHA, 2024). Despite digital investments, persistent gaps in governance, trust, and interoperability remain. Donors expect traceability, communities demand transparency, and field actors need tools that function under severe constraints (Nurmala, de Leeuw and Dullaert, 2017).

Why Focus on Blockchain Technology?

While digital technologies like cloud-based systems and AI platforms promise improvements, they fall short in humanitarian contexts, especially regarding governance, trust, and resilience (Dubey et al., 2020; Nurmala, de Leeuw and Dullaert, 2017). Centralised solutions often worsen power imbalances and are vulnerable to outages and cyber-attacks, undermining operations in fragile environments (Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Tapscott and Tapscott, 2016; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021). AI systems, meanwhile, raise concerns over data privacy, bias, and opaque decision-making, contributing to stakeholder mistrust (Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020; Fast and Waugaman, 2016; Coppi, 2020).

These limitations highlight the need for alternative approaches. Blockchain’s decentralised and tamper-evident architecture offers immutable records, real-time auditability, and distributed governance (Casino, Dasaklis and Patsakis, 2019; Saberi et al., 2019). Its features—decentralisation, transparency, consensus mechanisms—make it well-suited for multi-actor humanitarian settings with fragmented systems and mistrust (Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021). Real-world examples, such as WFP’s Building Blocks project, have demonstrated blockchain’s potential for secure, transparent, and efficient aid delivery (WFP, 2021), with similar benefits seen in private sector supply chain initiatives (Yadav and Singh, 2020).

However, blockchain faces challenges around governance, interoperability, regulation, and costs (Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021). This study therefore examines when and how blockchain can meaningfully enhance coordination, transparency, and resilience in humanitarian operations.

Problem Statement

Humanitarian operations remain hindered by fragmented systems and low inter-agency trust. While blockchain offers a potential remedy, adoption remains limited and under-evaluated (Dubey et al., 2019; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021). Empirical studies are sparse, and existing theories of coordination and adoption remain under-tested. This dissertation addresses two critical gaps:

The persistent lack of transparency, interoperability, and coordination in humanitarian systems.

The limited empirical and theoretical understanding of blockchain’s practical relevance in addressing these issues.

Aim of the Study

This study critically examines whether and how blockchain technology can enhance transparency, coordination, and resilience in humanitarian operations. A real-world case is analysed to compare theoretical expectations with operational outcomes.

Objectives

• Identify key coordination and transparency challenges through literature and operational documentation (Thomas and Kopczak, 2005; Nurmala et al., 2017).

• Evaluate blockchain’s role in enabling transparency via decentralised structures, audit trails, and smart contracts (Casino et al., 2019; Saberi et al., 2019).

• Explore how blockchain supports resilience through data integrity, inter-agency trust, and responsiveness (Yadav and Singh, 2020).

• Conduct a case study of a humanitarian blockchain deployment to extract lessons for implementation, governance, and policy (WFP, 2021).

Research Questions

1. What are the core barriers to transparency and coordination in current humanitarian operations?

2. How can blockchain technology be applied to improve information visibility and accountability among diverse humanitarian actors?

3. In what ways can blockchain strengthen operational resilience in humanitarian systems?

4. What lessons can be drawn from a real-world blockchain case study to guide future humanitarian applications?

Rationale of the Study

This section outlines the rationale from both theoretical and operational perspectives. The research is grounded in established theories of technology adoption and inter-organisational coordination (Galbraith, 1973; Rogers, 2003), while also responding to persistent operational challenges in humanitarian settings (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Dubey et al., 2020). It introduces the selected frameworks and their applied significance.

Theoretical Framework

This study adopts a multi-theoretical approach to understanding blockchain adoption in humanitarian operations. Based on a critical review of the literature, four interrelated frameworks were selected for their relevance to coordination, inter-agency trust, innovation diffusion, and user-level adoption:

• Organisational Information Processing Theory (OIPT): Explains how organisations manage uncertainty by improving information flows (Galbraith, 1973).

• Relational View (RV): Focuses on trust and collaborative value creation across inter-organisational partnerships (Dyer and Singh, 1998).

• Diffusion of Innovation (DOI): Describes adoption dynamics based on perceived advantage, compatibility, and complexity (Rogers, 2003).

• UTAUT: Models user acceptance through performance expectancy, effort, and social influence (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Other models, such as TOE and Institutional theory, were considered but excluded to avoid conceptual overlap and due to limited contextual fit. Chapter 2 provides a full critique. Table 1 below summarises the rationale for selecting the four core frameworks underpinning this study.

Framework	Analytical Focus	Contribution to This Study
OIPT	Structural coordination under uncertainty	Analyses how decentralised systems manage information complexity and decision-making in fragmented humanitarian environments.
RV	Inter-organisational trust and value co-creation	Explores how blockchain can strengthen collaboration and relational trust in temporary, multi-actor humanitarian partnerships.
DOI	Innovation diffusion across organisations	Assesses how perceived benefits, complexity, and compatibility of blockchain influence its adoption by humanitarian actors.
UTAUT	User-level adoption and behavioural intention	Captures the role of performance expectancy, social influence, and ease of use in shaping individual acceptance of blockchain technologies.

Table 1- Justification for Selected Theoretical Frameworks

These four frameworks—OIPT, RV, DOI, and UTAUT—were chosen for their collective strength in addressing the challenges outlined in the problem statement. OIPT targets coordination and information-processing gaps in uncertain contexts; RV addresses trust deficits and governance issues; DOI examines factors that condition blockchain adoption; and UTAUT captures user acceptance and behavioural intentions. Institutional Theory and the TOE framework were considered but not selected, as they are less suited to the sector’s trust, transparency, and decentralised adoption challenges. Thus, this set offers a comprehensive, multi-level lens for analysing blockchain adoption in humanitarian operations (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Yin, 2018).

Practical Rationale

The humanitarian sector faces increasing pressure to deliver aid that is not only effective but also transparent, accountable, and responsive to community needs. Stakeholders—including donors, implementers, and beneficiaries—now demand verifiable assurance that aid reaches the right people, in the right way, at the right time (Khan, Haleem and Khan, 2019; OECD, 2019). Yet traditional coordination mechanisms often lack the data visibility and auditability required to meet these expectations, especially in conflict zones, refugee contexts, and disaster settings where access is constrained and inter-agency trust is limited (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Fast and Waugaman, 2016; Dubey et al., 2020).

Blockchain offers features such as immutable records, shared ledgers, and smart contract automation that can enhance transparency, accountability, and coordination (Tapscott and Tapscott, 2016; Saberi et al., 2019). Initiatives like WFP’s Building Blocks demonstrate potential by reducing transaction costs, improving data control, and enabling faster verification (WFP, 2021; IFRC, 2021). This study provides field-informed insights to help practitioners evaluate blockchain’s relevance, design, and governance—contributing to more agile, trustworthy, and inclusive humanitarian systems.

Methodology Overview

This study adopts a qualitative, interpretivist approach to examine blockchain implementation in humanitarian operations. The primary case is the World Food Programme’s Building Blocks initiative. A multi-method data collection strategy was employed, incorporating semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and a structured online survey. Guided by the four theoretical frameworks outlined earlier, the methodology aims to generate rich, context-specific insights rather than statistical generalisations (Creswell and Poth, 2018). Chapter 3 details the research philosophy, design, data sources, and ethical protocols (Yin, 2018; Braun and Clarke, 2006).

Dissertation Structure

This dissertation is organised into five interrelated chapters, each building upon the before form a coherent and academically grounded investigation into the potential of blockchain technology in humanitarian coordination (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2019):

• Chapter 1 – Introduction: Defines the research context, problem statement, aim, objectives, research questions, and theoretical rationale, and outlines the dissertation structure.

• Chapter 2 – Literature Review: Critically examines theoretical frameworks (OIPT, RV, DOI, and UTAUT) and empirical studies on blockchain in humanitarian settings. It identifies key knowledge gaps and develops the conceptual framework.

• Chapter 3 – Methodology: Describes the research philosophy, case study strategy, data collection methods (interviews, survey, and document analysis), analytical approach, and ethical considerations.

• Chapter 4 – Findings and Discussion: Presents and interprets thematic results in relation to the research questions and conceptual model.

• Chapter 5 – Conclusion and Recommendations: Summarises findings, addresses limitations, and proposes practical and theoretical recommendations.

Figure 1 provides a visual overview of this structure.

Figure 1 - Research Overview

Personal Motivation and Critical Reflection

With over two decades of leadership in humanitarian emergency communications and ICT, including service as IT Emergency Coordinator at the World Food Programme. I have led deployments across Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Haiti, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, and West Africa during the Ebola crisis. These experiences revealed the critical impact of fragmented systems, delayed coordination, and trust deficits among agencies.

They also sparked a professional interest in whether decentralised systems like blockchain could address these persistent challenges. However, this interest is tempered by critical awareness: I have seen many digital tools fail due to poor integration, weak interoperability, or limited stakeholder engagement. This study is therefore grounded in a commitment to evaluate blockchain’s real-world relevance—assessing not only its potential to build trust and resilience, but also its limitations in ethically sensitive, resource-constrained settings.

Summary

The introduction sets the research context, objectives, and rationale for studying blockchain in humanitarian work. The qualitative case study methodology is chosen to capture the complexity of implementing new technologies in resource-constrained, multi-actor settings.

Chapter 2 builds on this by analysing the role of blockchain—secure, decentralised, and tamper-evident record-keeping—in tackling coordination, transparency, and resilience challenges in humanitarian contexts (Nakamoto, 2008; Casino, Dasaklis and Patsakis, 2019). Although initiatives like WFP’s Building Blocks and UNICEF’s CryptoFund show potential, most remain pilot projects with limited analysis of adoption and impact (WFP, 2021; Coppi, 2020; IFRC, 2021; Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020).

References

• Baharmand, H., Saeed, N., Comes, T. and Lauras, M. (2021) ‘Developing a framework for designing humanitarian blockchain projects’, Computers in Industry, 131, 103487. (Maastricht University)

• Balcik, B., Beamon, B.M., Krejci, C.C., Muramatsu, K.M. and Ramirez, M. (2010) ‘Coordination in humanitarian relief chains: Practices, challenges and opportunities’, International Journal of Production Economics, 126(1), pp. 22–34. (IDEAS/RePEc)

• Besiou, M., Pedraza-Martinez, A.J. and Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2018) ‘OR applied to humanitarian operations’, European Journal of Operational Research, 269(2), pp. 397–405. Note: your excerpt cites this as 2016. (ScienceDirect)

• Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp. 77–101. (Taylor & Francis Online)

• Casino, F., Dasaklis, T.K. and Patsakis, C. (2019) ‘A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification and open issues’, Telematics and Informatics, 36, pp. 55–81. (SCIRP)

• Coppi, G. (2020) ‘Introduction to distributed ledger technologies for social, development, and humanitarian impact’, in Blockchain, Law and Governance. Springer, pp. 231–241. (ResearchGate)

• Creswell, J.W. and Poth, C.N. (2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 4th edn. SAGE Publications. (Sage College Publishing)

• Dubey, R., Altay, N. and Blome, C. (2019) ‘Swift trust and commitment: The missing links for humanitarian supply chain coordination?’, Annals of Operations Research, 283(1–2), pp. 159–177. (Springer)

• Dubey, R., Bryde, D.J., Foropon, C., Tiwari, M., Dwivedi, Y. and Schiffling, S. (2021) ‘An investigation of information alignment and collaboration as complements to supply chain agility in humanitarian supply chain’, International Journal of Production Research, 59(5), pp. 1586–1605. Note: this may explain your in-text citation as 2020 because the article appeared online first in 2020. (IDEAS/RePEc)

• Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998) ‘The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Review, 23(4), pp. 660–679. (JSTOR)

• Fast, L. and Waugaman, A. (2016) Fighting Ebola with Information: Learning from the Use of Data, Information, and Digital Technologies in the West Africa Ebola Response. USAID. (Larissa Fast)

• Francisco, K. and Swanson, D. (2018) ‘The supply chain has no clothes: Technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency’, Logistics, 2(1), 2. (MDPI)

• Galbraith, J.R. (1973) Designing Complex Organizations. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. (Google Books)

• IFRC (2021) Digital Identity: An Analysis for the Humanitarian Sector. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (ifrc.org)

• Khan, S., Khan, M.I. and Haleem, A. (2019) ‘Blockchain Enabled Supply Chain: An Implementation Perspective’, Our Heritage, 67(5), pp. 318–334. (ResearchGate)

• Moshtari, M. (2016) ‘Inter-Organizational Fit, Relationship Management Capability, and Collaborative Performance within a Humanitarian Setting’, Production and Operations Management, 25(9), pp. 1542–1557. (Hanken School of Economics)

• Nakamoto, S. (2008) Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. (Bitcoin)

• Nurmala, N., de Leeuw, S. and Dullaert, W. (2017) ‘Humanitarian–business partnerships in managing humanitarian logistics’, Supply Chain Management, 22(1), pp. 82–94. (Wageningen University & Research)

• OECD (2019) Going Digital: Shaping Policies, Improving Lives. OECD. (OECD)

• Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn. Free Press. (Simon & Schuster)

• Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J. and Shen, L. (2019) ‘Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management’, International Journal of Production Research, 57(7), pp. 2117–2135. (IDEAS/RePEc)

• Sandvik, K.B., Jacobsen, K.L. and McDonald, S.M. (2017) ‘Do no harm: A taxonomy of the challenges of humanitarian experimentation’, International Review of the Red Cross. (Peace Research Institute Oslo)

• Saunders, M.N.K., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2019) Research Methods for Business Students. 8th edn. Pearson. (Google Books)

• Tapscott, D. and Tapscott, A. (2016) Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World. Penguin. (Google Books)

• Thomas, A.S. and Kopczak, L.R. (2005) From Logistics to Supply Chain Management: The Path Forward in the Humanitarian Sector. Fritz Institute. (ALNAP)

• United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) (2024) OCHA Annual Report 2024. (OCHA)

• Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2006) ‘Humanitarian aid logistics: Supply chain management in high gear’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(5), pp. 475–489. (Taylor & Francis Online)

• Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003) ‘User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view’, MIS Quarterly, 27(3), pp. 425–478. (misq.umn.edu)

• World Food Programme (WFP) (2022) Annual Performance Report for 2021. Note: this likely underpins the in-text citation ‘WFP, 2021’ in your excerpt, but the formal report publication is 2022 for the 2021 reporting year. (executiveboard.wfp.org)

• Yadav, S. and Singh, S.P. (2020) ‘Blockchain critical success factors for sustainable supply chain’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 152, 104505. (ScienceDirect)

• Yin, R.K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th edn. SAGE Publications. (SAGE Publications)

• Zwitter, A. and Boisse-Despiaux, M. (2018) ‘Blockchain for humanitarian action and development aid’, Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 3(1), 16. Note: your excerpt cites this as 2020. (Groningen Research Portal)