Leveraging Blockchain Technology to Improve Transparency and Resilience in the Humanitarian Sector - Chapter 2 - Literature Review

This chapter builds on the foundations established in Chapter One by critically reviewing the theoretical and empirical literature on blockchain in humanitarian coordination. It is structured around four selected frameworks—OIPT, RV, DOI, and UTAUT—which reflect the structural, relational, innovation, and user dimensions of adoption. The review concludes by identifying key gaps that inform the study’s research design.

Introduction

This chapter critically evaluates the theoretical and empirical literature on blockchain adoption in humanitarian operations. Humanitarian systems typically operate in volatile, multi-actor environments marked by uncertainty, fragmented data systems, and low inter-organisational trust (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Moshtari, 2016). These conditions create recurring coordination challenges defined here as the ability of multiple stakeholders to align decisions, share information, and deliver aid effectively across organisational boundaries. Transparency refers to the visibility and traceability of actions and resources among actors, while resilience denotes a system’s capacity to adapt, absorb shocks, and maintain operational continuity in crisis settings.

Among the digital innovations explored in the humanitarian sector, this study focuses on blockchain—a distributed ledger technology (DLT) enabling secure, tamper-evident, decentralised record-keeping without reliance on a central authority (Nakamoto, 2008; Casino, Dasaklis and Patsakis, 2019). Blockchain was selected for its structural fit with trust-deficient, decentralised environments where coordination and data integrity are paramount. While artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud systems offer centralised optimisation and storage, blockchain supports shared data control, protocol-based trust, and immutable audit trails—features well suited to settings marked by inter-agency mistrust, fragmented systems, and verification burdens (Dubey et al., 2020; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021).

Blockchain’s potential to improve auditability, visibility, and accountability is already being tested in humanitarian pilots such as WFP’s Building Blocks, UNICEF’s CryptoFund, and IFRC’s digital identity initiative (WFP, 2021; Coppi, 2020; IFRC, 2021). Yet most remain at pilot scale and are under-analysed in terms of adoption dynamics, behavioural response, and institutional readiness (Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020). This review therefore examines how blockchain has been positioned in academic and operational discourse and interrogates the theoretical frameworks through which its adoption can be understood.

Theoretical Foundations

To analyse blockchain’s potential in humanitarian coordination, this study applies four frameworks:

• Organisational Information Processing Theory (OIPT)

• Relational View (RV)

• Diffusion of Innovation (DOI)

• Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

OIPT addresses how organisations process information in uncertainty (Galbraith, 1973), while RV stresses trust and governance in inter-organisational relationships (Dyer and Singh, 1998). DOI explains how perceived advantages and complexity influence adoption (Rogers, 2003), and UTAUT examines user acceptance (Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Each framework has limitations: OIPT and RV assume rational or cooperative actors, which may not hold in complex humanitarian settings (Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020). DOI may overlook non-linear, context-driven processes (Greenhalgh et al., 2004), while UTAUT may underplay urgent, resource-constrained realities (Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Fast, 2020). Integrating these frameworks allows for a multidimensional and balanced analysis of blockchain adoption in humanitarian contexts (Dubey et al., 2020; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021).

Organisational Information Processing Theory (OIPT)

Organisational Information Processing Theory (OIPT), introduced by Galbraith (1973), posits that organisations must align their information-processing capabilities with environmental complexity and uncertainty. In humanitarian contexts—marked by decentralised actors, divergent mandates, and urgent needs—traditional coordination methods often fail to provide timely, accurate data, resulting in operational blind spots and delays (Moshtari, 2016; Altay and Pal, 2014).

Blockchain technology offers a decentralised, tamper-evident ledger, enhancing information sharing, transparency, and auditability across multiple stakeholders (Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Saberi et al., 2019). In practice, initiatives like WFP’s Building Blocks have demonstrated improvements in transaction visibility, responsiveness, and inter-agency coordination, delivering secure, auditable cash assistance at scale (WFP, 2021; Coppi and Fast, 2019).

However, OIPT assumes rational decision-making, clear goals, and stable structures—conditions often absent in fragmented, politically complex humanitarian environments (Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Van Wassenhove, 2006). The theory also focuses on formal processes, potentially overlooking the critical roles of informal networks and relational dynamics (Nurmala, de Leeuw and Dullaert, 2017).

In summary, while OIPT clarifies how blockchain can strengthen humanitarian coordination by boosting information-processing capacity, it must be complemented by frameworks addressing relational, behavioural, and political complexities for a fuller understanding (Dyer and Singh, 1998; Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003).

The Relational View (RV)

The Relational View (RV), introduced by Dyer and Singh (1998), underscores how inter-organisational relationships create strategic advantage through trust, governance, and knowledge sharing (Lavie, 2006; Cao and Zhang, 2011). In humanitarian operations, these relational resources are vital for coordination among diverse actors (Van Wassenhove, 2006; Balcik et al., 2010; Tatham and Kovács, 2010). Trust and informal networks often compensate for weak formal governance (Moshtari, 2016; Nurmala, de Leeuw and Dullaert, 2017).

Blockchain technology supports RV principles by enabling transparent, decentralised ledgers and smart contracts that enhance trust and compliance (Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Casino, Dasaklis and Patsakis, 2019). Pilots like WFP’s Building Blocks and UNICEF’s CryptoFund show blockchain’s potential to strengthen relational governance through traceability and accountability (WFP, 2021; Coppi, 2020). However, RV assumes balanced power and stable cooperation, which are often missing in humanitarian contexts with competing mandates and resource constraints (Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020; Fast, 2020; Jahre and Jensen, 2010). Blockchain’s rigidity can also limit adaptability in dynamic situations (Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Coppi, 2020).

Thus, while RV explains blockchain’s contribution to trust and governance, it should be complemented by frameworks like OIPT, DOI, and UTAUT to address broader structural and behavioural complexities (Galbraith, 1973; Rogers, 2003; Venkatesh et al., 2003).

Diffusion of Innovation (DOI)

Diffusion of Innovation (DOI), as outlined by Rogers (2003), explains the adoption of new technologies through five attributes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. In humanitarian contexts, DOI clarifies why technologies like blockchain—despite clear benefits such as improved transparency and verifiability (Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Saberi et al., 2019)—are adopted unevenly. Limited trialability and high complexity, combined with entrenched legacy systems, slow uptake, especially when end-users lack technical expertise or incentives (Coppi, 2020; Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021).

DOI’s focus on a staged adoption process can overlook the political and iterative realities of humanitarian work (Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Fast, 2020). It also does not fully address organisational enablers like leadership support or infrastructure, which are better covered by frameworks such as UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Dwivedi et al., 2019).

In sum, DOI is useful for clarifying the early dynamics of blockchain adoption in humanitarian operations, but requires complementary theories—such as UTAUT, RV, and OIPT—for a comprehensive account (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Dyer and Singh, 1998; Galbraith, 1973).

Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) by Venkatesh et al. (2003) explains technology adoption through four determinants: performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. These are shaped by factors like age, gender, experience, and voluntariness (Williams, Rana and Dwivedi, 2015; Dwivedi et al., 2019).

In humanitarian settings, UTAUT helps clarify differences in blockchain adoption among stakeholders with varying digital skills and access (Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Coppi, 2020). Projects like WFP’s Building Blocks saw strong uptake due to user-friendly design and alignment with workflows, while initiatives such as IFRC’s Digital ID pilot faced challenges due to usability and ethical concerns, and weak institutional support (WFP, 2021; Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020; Coppi, 2020).

Social influence—including peer adoption and donor requirements—also shapes uptake in multi-agency environments (Fast and Waugaman, 2016; Scott, 2008). Yet UTAUT’s commercial origins mean it overlooks many humanitarian realities—like infrastructure instability, urgency, and ethical complexities (Sandvik, Jacobsen and McDonald, 2017; Fast, 2020).

In sum, UTAUT is valuable for understanding end-user behaviour in blockchain adoption but should be used alongside frameworks like OIPT, RV, and DOI for a full account of structural and relational factors (Galbraith, 1973; Dyer and Singh, 1998; Rogers, 2003).

The table below summarises how each framework maps to the challenges and mechanisms observed across the selected cases.

Case Study	Primary Framework(s) Applied	Justification
WFP Building Blocks	OIPT RV UTAUT	Coordination complexity, inter-agency trust, and user adoption behaviour
UNICEF Crypto Fund	RV DOI	Trust in disbursement, innovation perception, and visibility across partners
IFRC Digital ID	UTAUT (with light RV)	User control, behavioural intention, adoption resistance, and ethical concerns

Critique and Contextual Reframing of the Frameworks

While the selection of OIPT, RV, DOI, and UTAUT provides a multidimensional lens for exploring blockchain adoption, it is important to acknowledge that these frameworks originate from relatively stable, corporate, or consumer technology settings. Their foundational assumptions — such as rational actor behaviour (OIPT, RV), voluntary adoption (UTAUT), or resource-rich diffusion pathways (DOI) may not hold in humanitarian operations marked by extreme volatility, constrained agency, and asymmetrical power relations. For example, UTAUT's “facilitating conditions” assume infrastructural availability, which in conflict zones may be episodic or externally controlled. Likewise, RV presumes cooperative inter-organisational trust, whereas humanitarian coordination often suffers from turf protection and fragmented mandates.

To address these limitations, this study applies the frameworks with context-aware reinterpretation. “Information processing needs” (OIPT) are understood in light of coordination under uncertainty; “trust” (RV) is dissected into institutional vs interpersonal dynamics; and “user acceptance” (UTAUT) is re-examined not just as a behavioural model, but as a reflection of organisational culture, digital literacy, and conflict-induced resistance. This interpretive adaptation reflects the need for a flexible theoretical synthesis rather than a rigid application — a contribution this research aims to foreground.

To summarise this critique, the table below distils the theoretical reinterpretation developed in this study, aligning each framework’s original assumptions with the operational realities and constraints of humanitarian blockchain contexts.

Framework	Original Focus	Humanitarian Reinterpretation
OIPT	Information processing under uncertainty	Coordination amid fragmented actors and volatile supply chains.
RV	Inter-organisational trust for competitive advantage	Trust under competing mandates, data ethics, and donor pressure.
DOI	Innovation adoption via relative advantage, complexity, observability	Adoption influenced by pilot fatigue, ethical scrutiny, and scalability risks.
UTAUT	Behavioural intention driven by performance expectancy, effort, social influence	Organisational digital culture, conflict context, localisation of technology use.

Blockchain Technology in Theory and Practice

Blockchain technology is increasingly positioned as a tool for addressing persistent humanitarian coordination challenges, including low inter-agency trust, limited data visibility, and accountability gaps. Its relevance lies in structural features that align with the needs of complex, decentralised environments—particularly where stakeholders must collaborate without prior relationships or central oversight.

At its core, blockchain is a distributed digital ledger technology (DLT) that records transactions across a peer-to-peer network in a tamper-evident and verifiable manner. Transactions are grouped into blocks, cryptographically linked to previous blocks, and validated via consensus mechanisms such as Proof of Work (PoW) or Proof of Stake (PoS) (Nakamoto, 2008; Swan, 2015). Once validated, these blocks form an immutable, time-stamped audit trail accessible to authorised participants (Casino, Dasaklis and Patsakis, 2019).

Unlike traditional centralised databases, blockchain enables trust through algorithmic consensus and transparent verification rather than institutional authority. This makes it particularly suitable for humanitarian settings marked by fragmented systems, divergent mandates, and limited interoperability (Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020).

Blockchains vary in their governance models—ranging from public (permissionless) to private (permissioned) and hybrid forms. In humanitarian operations, permissioned systems are generally preferred due to their ability to offer selective access control, role-based permissions, and compliance with data protection standards (Kshetri, 2018; Coppi and Fast, 2019).

Four Core Features

Four foundational features underpin blockchain’s perceived value in humanitarian coordination:

• Immutability: Creates verifiable audit trails, enhancing donor trust and financial accountability.

• Transparency: Provides real-time, cross-agency data visibility, reducing duplication and fragmentation.

• Decentralisation: Minimises reliance on fragile or politicised central institutions.

• Smart Contracts: Automate conditional processes, such as disbursement, compliance, or identity verification (Saberi et al., 2019; Buterin, 2014).

These features directly address many operational pain points. For example, WFP’s Building Blocks project facilitated blockchain-based cash assistance to Syrian refugees, eliminating the need for external financial intermediaries (WFP, 2021). UNICEF’s CryptoFund improved fund traceability for early-stage innovation investments across jurisdictions (Coppi, 2020). Both initiatives demonstrated gains in operational efficiency, transparency, and system integrity.

Constraints and Caveat

Despite its promise, blockchain presents several challenges:

• Governance and Control: Questions around who controls access, manages nodes, and determines consensus protocols remain largely unresolved. In humanitarian operations, these raise critical concerns regarding inclusion, consent, and digital equity (Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020; Sandvik et al., 2017).

• Interoperability: Most humanitarian digital infrastructure is siloed and lacks the technical maturity to integrate with decentralised ledgers. Interoperability remains a key barrier to scaling (Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Baharmand and Comes, 2015).

• Environmental Sustainability: Some blockchain implementations (particularly those using PoW) carry high energy demands. These are often incompatible with low-power, low-bandwidth environments common in humanitarian deployments (Tapscott and Tapscott, 2016).

  
  

• Techno-Solutionism and Ethical Blind Spots: Over-reliance on digital tools may mask structural power asymmetries or displace local knowledge. As Scott (2008) and Sandvik et al. (2017) caution, algorithmic coordination may inadvertently marginalise actors and reduce adaptability. Blockchain must be situated within a broader system of relational governance, not viewed as a one-size-fits-all fix (Fast and Waugaman, 2016).

Synthesis

Despite these limitations, blockchain offers a novel mechanism for improving data integrity, decentralised accountability, and real-time visibility in humanitarian coordination. However, its effectiveness depends on alignment with context-specific needs, strong stakeholder governance, and the presence of ethical safeguards. These conditions are explored further in the next section, which examines how blockchain has been applied in practice and what the empirical literature reveals about its real-world effects.

Blockchain in Humanitarian Operations

Blockchain’s role in humanitarian operations has gained momentum in the past decade, with pilots by UN agencies and NGOs spanning financial transfers, identity management, and supply chain tracking (WFP, 2021; Coppi, 2020; IFRC, 2021).

Though most projects are in early stages, three factors repeatedly surface as critical for effective implementation: context-specific needs, stakeholder alignment, and ethical safeguards. The following use cases—WFP’s Building Blocks, UNICEF’s CryptoFund, and IFRC’s Digital Identity pilot—highlight real-world examples and frame the operational challenges and opportunities discussed in this research. 32

WFP’s Building Blocks Initiative (Main Case)

The most prominent and widely documented example is the World Food Programme’s Building Blocks project. Initiated in 2017, this programme leverages a private Ethereum-based blockchain to facilitate secure, cost-efficient, and auditable cash transfers for Syrian refugees in Jordan and Bangladesh. By eliminating the need for third-party financial intermediaries, WFP significantly reduced transaction costs, improved data control, and achieved real-time financial reconciliation with cooperating partners (WFP, 2021; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021).

An important feature of the initiative is its functionality in low-connectivity environments. Using point-of-sale terminals with offline biometric authentication, Building Blocks demonstrated that blockchain could be operationalised in fragile settings—offering a scalable model for future deployments.

UNICEF’s CryptoFund – Blockchain for Traceable Funding (Supporting case)

UNICEF's CryptoFund represents another innovative use of blockchain, designed to support early-stage start-ups developing open-source solutions for children. The initiative disburses funds in cryptocurrency, enabling complete traceability, real-time auditing, and direct transfers without banking intermediaries (Coppi, 2020).

IFRC’s Digital ID Pilot – Blockchain for Identity Management (Supporting case)

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) piloted a blockchain-powered digital identity system to enhance identity verification and entitlement tracking among displaced populations. This approach aimed to grant individuals greater control over their personal data while minimising risks of fraud and duplication across multiple agencies (IFRC, 2021)

Agency	Used Case	Block chain Type	Location	Key Features	Observed Outcomes
WFP	Cash-based assistance for refugees	Private Ethereum based	Jordan Bangladesh	Offline biometric authentication Real-time reconciliation	Reduced transaction costs Improved data control Visibility
UNICEF	CryptoFund for traceable funding	Crypto currency based	Global (distributed to start-ups)	Real-time auditability Direct transfers Open-source funding	Enhanced traceability Reduced reliance on banking intermediaries
IFRC	Digital Identity Management (IDM)	Permissioned blockchain	Pilot with displaced populations	Decentralised ID control Fraud prevention Entitlement verification	Increased data ownership Reduced duplication Improved security

While these use cases demonstrate the promise of blockchain in humanitarian coordination, they also highlight unresolved issues in adoption dynamics, inter-agency trust, and system-level integration, all of which this study seeks to explore in greater depth.

While these initiatives demonstrate the exploratory potential of blockchain in humanitarian contexts, they also reveal a deeper structural tension. The heavy emphasis on pilot projects often short-term, top-down, and externally funded risks falling into what some scholars term “pilot purgatory”, where innovations are endlessly tested but rarely scaled or localised (Green, 2019). This phenomenon is not unique to blockchain: it echoes what Morozov (2013) critiqued as “technological solutionism” the belief that digital tools can solve fundamentally political or institutional problems.

From a decolonial lens, such pilots may inadvertently reinforce humanitarian techno-colonialism (Illich, 1971), where marginalised communities are tested upon rather than genuinely empowered. Blockchain may shift the locus of technical trust, but not necessarily the structures of power or data ownership. Without clear strategies for localisation, consent, and community agency, these innovations risk reproducing elite control under the guise of decentralisation.

Recurring Challenges in Blockchain Implementation

Despite their innovation, these blockchain projects underscore several systemic challenges. This section categorises and synthesises five key limitations repeatedly observed in the literature:

• Limited Scalability and Institutional Anchoring: Most blockchain initiatives in the humanitarian sector remain donor-funded pilots with constrained scalability. They are typically championed by specific individuals or innovation teams, rather than being fully institutionalised or integrated into organisational strategy or interoperable platforms (Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020).

• Unresolved Ethical and Data Governance Concerns: Concerns about data sovereignty, informed consent, and equitable inclusion remain largely unaddressed. While biometric authentication facilitates verification, it raises significant ethical and privacy-related questions, especially in politically sensitive environments (Sandvik et al., 2017; Fast, 2020).

• Political and Structural Tensions: Blockchain’s supposed neutrality can obscure underlying political dynamics and institutional hierarchies. Issues such as data ownership, access rights, and governance models often create friction between agencies. Furthermore, technical obstacles—including limited infrastructure, poor interoperability, and insufficient field-level capacity to manage smart contracts—persist in low-resource and rapidly evolving settings (Scott, 2008; Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Tapscott and Tapscott, 2016; Coppi and Fast, 2019).

• Technological Solutionism and Contextual Blindness: There is a growing risk of techno-solutionism—the belief that technological innovation can resolve deeply political, relational, and institutional failures (Scott, 2008; Morozov, 2013). While blockchain can streamline data flows and improve auditability, it cannot substitute for the political negotiation, relational trust-building, and contextual adaptation required for effective humanitarian coordination (Sandvik et al., 2017; Zwitter and Boisse-Despiaux, 2020).

As such, blockchain should be viewed not as a standalone solution but as one enabling component within a broader ecosystem of governance, policy, and human-centred collaboration (Fast and Waugaman, 2016).

• Conditional Impact Based on Implementation Context: The effectiveness of blockchain is not determined solely by its technological features but by the socio-technical ecosystem into which it is embedded. When implemented with ethical safeguards, stakeholder alignment, and clear governance models, blockchain can complement existing humanitarian coordination tools (Dubey et al., 2020; Saberi et al., 2019). It shows promise in cash transfer programming, digital identity management, and supply chain verification.

Beyond the thematic categories above, these challenges also expose deeper tensions between innovation rhetoric and operational realities. The persistent reliance on pilot projects, donor dependency, and lack of field-level agency mirror what Morozov (2013) described as technological solutionism and what Illich (1971) framed as humanitarian techno-colonialism, where marginalised communities are tested upon rather than meaningfully empowered. While blockchain aspires to decentralise control and enhance trust, in practice it may reinforce elite data ownership, especially without robust localisation, co-design, and consent mechanisms (Madianou, 2019). Thus, any meaningful evaluation of blockchain’s potential in humanitarian settings must go beyond technical efficacy to interrogate the underlying power structures it sustains or disrupts. These insights shape the conceptual framework presented in the following section.

Research Gaps and Conceptual Framework

The preceding sections demonstrate that while blockchain technology offers significant potential for improving coordination, transparency, and data integrity in humanitarian operations, its real-world adoption remains inconsistent, under-theorised, and operationally fragmented. Across both academic and grey literature, several unresolved issues persist.

• First, much of the existing research focuses on conceptual benefits or pilot case descriptions, with limited analysis of how blockchain functions within complex, multi-actor humanitarian systems (Baharmand, Comes and Lauras, 2021; Coppi, 2020).

• Second, few studies provide a structured theoretical explanation for blockchain adoption beyond referencing high-level digital transformation rhetoric. Where frameworks are applied, they tend to focus on either organisational structure (e.g., OIPT), innovation diffusion (e.g., DOI), or behavioural intention (e.g., UTAUT), but rarely integrate these perspectives into a coherent analytical model (Dubey et al., 2020; Dwivedi et al., 2019).

• Third, there is a noticeable absence of research that bridges coordination challenges with user-level adoption dynamics. Humanitarian settings are often examined either from a logistical systems view or from the standpoint of governance and ethics—but rarely both. This split leaves a theoretical blind spot around how technologies like blockchain are both structured into systems and taken up by individuals.

Bridging the Gaps through Integrated Theory

To address the fragmented theoretical treatment in existing research, this study advances a comprehensive framework that not only draws on four established theories but also adapts them to the humanitarian context. Rather than treating coordination, trust, innovation, and adoption as discrete issues, the study treats them as interdependent dimensions of a single socio-technical challenge.

This study addresses these gaps by applying a multi-theoretical framework that combines structural, relational, innovation, and behavioural perspectives. The four frameworks selected—Organisational Information Processing Theory (OIPT), the Relational View (RV), the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) collectively enable a multidimensional analysis of blockchain’s role in humanitarian coordination.

• OIPT frames blockchain as an information-processing tool that enhances visibility, reduces redundancy, and supports decentralised decision-making.

• RV positions blockchain as a relational enabler that facilitates trust-building and coordination between organisations through transparent and verifiable data.

• DOI explains how blockchain’s perceived attributes (e.g., relative advantage, complexity) influence adoption trajectories across humanitarian actors.

• UTAUT focuses on the behavioural intention and system use, capturing perceptions of effort expectancy, performance expectancy, and facilitating conditions.

This study contributes original value by offering a unified analytical model that integrates four theoretical perspectives across structural, relational, innovation, and behavioural dimensions. While prior research has typically applied these frameworks in isolation or partial combinations, this research formalises them into a single conceptual tool tailored to the humanitarian sector. This tool is not applied prescriptively; rather, each framework is reinterpreted in light of the operational, political, and ethical dynamics explored in the prior critique. This approach allows for a flexible synthesis sensitive to humanitarian realities.

Together, these theories allow the study to explore not only whether blockchain can improve humanitarian coordination, but also how, for whom, and under what conditions.

The following conceptual framework illustrates how the four selected theories inform this study’s analysis of blockchain adoption in the humanitarian sector. It links theoretical mechanisms to key operational outcomes: transparency, resilience, and accountability.

To illustrate how the framework operates in practice, consider the following scenario:

In a refugee camp, the WFP launches a blockchain cash transfer platform. Real-time data sharing improves coordination (OIPT), while transparent audit logs build trust between agencies (RV). Staff adoption is driven by efficiency gains (DOI) and supported by training and user-friendly design (UTAUT).

This scenario highlights the interplay between structural coordination (OIPT), trust governance (RV), innovation diffusion (DOI), and user behaviour (UTAUT). It also reinforces the study’s objective to understand blockchain implementation not as a purely technical endeavour, but as a function of systems, relationships, and people. Figure 2 below presents the conceptual framework visually, linking the theoretical mechanisms to key operational outcomes such as transparency, resilience, and accountability.

This framework integrates four theoretical perspectives (OIPT, RV, DOI, UTAUT) and identifies key mechanisms through which blockchain supports coordination, trust, innovation diffusion, and system use. The successful operation of these mechanisms is dependent on three enabling conditions: context-specific needs, stakeholder alignment, and ethical safeguards. These factors determine how blockchain solutions are interpreted, deployed, and sustained within humanitarian environments. The outcome pathway targets increased transparency, resilience, and accountability across multi-actor systems.

Summary

Chapter 2 establishes the theoretical and analytical foundation for examining blockchain adoption in humanitarian contexts. It introduces an integrated conceptual framework that brings together four key theories—Organisational Information Processing Theory (OIPT), Relational View (RV), Diffusion of Innovation (DOI), and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Unlike previous research that applied these frameworks in isolation, this study unifies them to analyse blockchain’s potential to enhance coordination, trust, innovation diffusion, and user engagement.

The framework is not prescriptive; instead, each theory is reinterpreted to reflect the operational, political, and ethical challenges present in humanitarian environments. This enables a flexible, context-sensitive approach that considers both technical and human factors.

A practical scenario illustrates the framework’s value: In a refugee camp, a blockchain-based cash transfer platform improves coordination (OIPT), strengthens trust through transparent audit logs (RV), encourages adoption via efficiency gains (DOI), and supports user engagement through training and accessible design (UTAUT).

The analysis identifies three enabling conditions for successful blockchain initiatives: context-specific needs, stakeholder alignment, and ethical safeguards. The intended outcomes are increased transparency, resilience, and accountability among diverse actors.

Overall, Chapter 2 positions blockchain adoption as a multidimensional challenge, requiring attention to systems, relationships, and user behaviour. This theoretical integration lays the groundwork for the empirical research and more detailed methodological discussion in the subsequent chapter.

References

1. Altay, N. and Pal, R. (2014) 'Information diffusion among agents: Implications for humanitarian operations', Production and Operations Management, 23(6), pp. 1015–1027.

2. Baharmand, H., Comes, T. and Lauras, M. (2021) 'Developing a framework for designing humanitarian blockchain projects', Computers in Industry, 131, 103487.

3. 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.

4. Buterin, V. (2014) Ethereum White Paper.

5. Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011) 'Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance', Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), pp. 163–180.

6. 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.

7. Coppi, G. (2020) 'The humanitarian blockchain: Can distributed ledgers improve aid effectiveness?', Humanitarian Innovation Project Briefing Note. University of Oxford.

8. Coppi, G. and Fast, L. (2019) Blockchain and distributed ledger technologies in the humanitarian sector. HPG Commissioned Report. London: Overseas Development Institute.

9. Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Bryde, D.J., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Papadopoulos, T. (2020) 'Blockchain technology for enhancing swift-trust, collaboration and resilience within a humanitarian supply chain setting', International Journal of Production Research, 58(11), pp. 3381–3398.

10. Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M. and Williams, M.D. (2019) 'Re-examining the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model', Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), pp. 719–734.

11. 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.

12. Fast, L. (2020) 'Power, control and humanitarian technology: Reasserting the politics of humanitarian innovation', Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, 2(3), pp. 72–82.

13. 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.

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

15. Galbraith, J.R. (1973) Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

16. Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P. and Kyriakidou, O. (2004) 'Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations', The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), pp. 581–629.

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

18. Illich, I. (1971) Deschooling Society. New York: Harper & Row.

19. Jahre, M. and Jensen, L.-M. (2010) 'Coordination in humanitarian logistics through clusters', International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(8/9), pp. 657–674.

20. Kshetri, N. (2018) 'Blockchain's roles in meeting key supply chain management objectives', International Journal of Information Management, 39, pp. 80–89.

21. Lavie, D. (2006) 'The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view', Academy of Management Review, 31(3), pp. 638–658.

22. Madianou, M. (2019) 'Technocolonialism: Digital innovation and data practices in the humanitarian response to refugee crises', Social Media + Society, 5(3).

23. Morozov, E. (2013) To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism. London: Penguin.

24. 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.

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

26. Nurmala, N., de Leeuw, S. and Dullaert, W. (2017) 'Humanitarian–business partnerships in managing humanitarian logistics', Supply Chain Management, 22(1), pp. 82–94.

27. Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edn. New York: Free Press.

28. 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.

29. 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, 99(904), pp. 319–344.

30. Scott, J.C. (2008) Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.

31. Swan, M. (2015) Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy. Sebastopol: O'Reilly Media.

32. Tapscott, D. and Tapscott, A. (2016) Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World. New York: Penguin.

33. Tatham, P. and Kovács, G. (2010) 'The application of swift trust to humanitarian logistics', International Journal of Production Economics, 126(1), pp. 35–45.

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. WFP (2021) Building Blocks: Blockchain for Humanitarian Cash Transfers. Rome: World Food Programme.

37. Williams, M.D., Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2015) 'The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review', Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), pp. 443–488.

38. Zwitter, A. and Boisse-Despiaux, M. (2020) 'Blockchain for humanitarian action and development aid', Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 5(16), pp. 1–10.