IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i1p284-d1559147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Blockchain Technology on Green Investment Decisions for a Sustainable Supply Chain with an Overconfident Manufacturer

Author

Listed:
  • Jiajun He

    (College of Management, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

  • Yiming Zhao

    (College of Management, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

  • Beijia Zhang

    (School of Economics and Management, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430078, China)

  • Lin Chen

    (College of Management, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

  • Xiuxiu Ma

    (College of Management, Wuhan Institute of Technology, Wuhan 430205, China)

Abstract

Driven by the principles of green consumption and social responsibility, more companies are making strategic green investments by adopting blockchain technology to achieve sustainable development goals. However, in the real market, upstream manufacturers often tend to be overconfident. This can have a significant impact on decision-making processes and even influence other members within the sustainable supply chain. This paper investigates the influence of blockchain technology on investment decisions in sustainable supply chains for a manufacturer exhibiting overconfidence. We construct a supply chain with an overconfident manufacturer and a rational retailer and discuss the performance of supply chains by comparing two scenarios: without blockchain and with blockchain. First, we find that overconfident manufacturer can only benefit from blockchain adoption if the actual operating cost is below this threshold. Then, the maximum adoption cost acceptable to manufacturer increases with the carbon tax rate and the consumers’ green sensitivity coefficient. Furthermore, with blockchain, manufacturer is likely to make more profit as the level of overconfidence increases compared to the case without blockchain. We also found that the retailer benefits from adopting blockchain technology only when the manufacturer’s overconfidence is at a low level. Otherwise, only when the blockchain operating cost is less than a certain threshold can the retailer increase their revenue. Finally, we find that when the level of overconfidence increases, blockchain adoption can boost consumer surplus and social welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiajun He & Yiming Zhao & Beijia Zhang & Lin Chen & Xiuxiu Ma, 2025. "The Impact of Blockchain Technology on Green Investment Decisions for a Sustainable Supply Chain with an Overconfident Manufacturer," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-32, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:1:p:284-:d:1559147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/1/284/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/1/284/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhangwei Feng & Na Luo & Timofey Shalpegin & Huan Cui, 2024. "The influence of carbon emission reduction instruments on blockchain technology adoption in recycling batteries of the new energy vehicles," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(3), pages 891-908, February.
    2. Yufei Ren & Rachel Croson, 2013. "Overconfidence in Newsvendor Orders: An Experimental Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(11), pages 2502-2517, November.
    3. Dong, Ciwei & Huang, Qianzhi & Fang, Debin, 2023. "Channel selection and pricing strategy with supply chain finance and blockchain," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    4. Meng Li, 2019. "Overconfident Distribution Channels," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 28(6), pages 1347-1365, June.
    5. Hao, Zhongyuan & Li, Juan & Cai, Jinling, 2023. "Allocation of inventory responsibilities in overconfident supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 207-221.
    6. Yan Zhou & Cong Liang & Kar-Hung Wong, 2024. "The Optimal Logistics Distribution Service Strategy of the E-commerce Closed-Loop Supply Chain Network under Blockchain Technology and the Government Blockchain Subsidy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-29, July.
    7. Dye, Chung-Yuan & Hsieh, Tsu-Pang, 2024. "A sustainable dynamic optimization model of pricing and advertising in the presence of green innovation investment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 315(2), pages 654-667.
    8. Yufei Ren & David Croson & Rachel Croson, 2017. "The overconfident newsvendor," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(5), pages 496-506, May.
    9. Guo Li & Ming K. Lim & Zhaohua Wang, 2020. "Stakeholders, green manufacturing, and practice performance: empirical evidence from Chinese fashion businesses," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 290(1), pages 961-982, July.
    10. Feng, Lipan & Jin, Minyue, 2022. "Platform vs. Manufacturer: Who should implement innovation in e-commerce supply chains?," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    11. Bian, Junsong & Zhao, Xuan, 2020. "Tax or subsidy? An analysis of environmental policies in supply chains with retail competition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(3), pages 901-914.
    12. Hua Pan & Huimin Zhu & Minmin Teng, 2023. "Low-Carbon Transformation Strategy for Blockchain-Based Power Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-22, August.
    13. Hongbo Tu & Mo Pang & Lin Chen, 2023. "Freshness-Keeping Strategy of Logistics Service Providers: The Role of the Interaction between Blockchain and Overconfidence," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-35, August.
    14. Niu, Baozhuang & Dong, Jian & Liu, Yaoqi, 2021. "Incentive alignment for blockchain adoption in medicine supply chains," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    15. Kopel, Michael & Ramani, Vinay, 2024. "The bright side of the planning fallacy in distribution channels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(2), pages 540-551.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhisong Chen & Chaonan Tang & Jianhui Peng, 2023. "Nominal effect vs actual effect: overconfidence in a consignment omnichannel," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 843-876, June.
    2. Du, Xianjin & Zhan, Huimin & Zhu, Xiaoxuan & He, Xiuli, 2021. "The upstream innovation with an overconfident manufacturer in a supply chain," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    3. Liu, Jie & Yang, Yang & Yu, Yugang, 2021. "Ordering and interest rate strategies in platform finance with an overconfident and commerce retailer," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    4. Hao, Zhongyuan & Li, Juan & Cai, Jinling, 2023. "Allocation of inventory responsibilities in overconfident supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 207-221.
    5. Tian Bai & Samuel N. Kirshner & Meng Wu, 2021. "Managing Overconfident Newsvendors: A Target‐Setting Approach," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(11), pages 3967-3986, November.
    6. Chen, Xin & Xu, Weijun & Wu, Meng, 2024. "Newsvendor overconfidence and advertising," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    7. Jialu Li & Meng Li & Xuan Zhao, 2021. "Transshipment Between Overconfident Newsvendors," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(9), pages 2803-2813, September.
    8. Weihua Liu & Xinran Shen & Di Wang, 2020. "The impacts of dual overconfidence behavior and demand updating on the decisions of port service supply chain: a real case study from China," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 291(1), pages 565-604, August.
    9. Jiang, Li & Hao, Zhongyuan, 2024. "Holding diverse market beliefs by firms: Information flow, profit performances, and channel structure," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    10. Kirshner, Samuel Nathan & Shao, Lusheng, 2019. "The overconfident and optimistic price-setting newsvendor," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(1), pages 166-173.
    11. Liu, Zhongyi & Li, Mengyu & Lei, Ying & Zhai, Xin, 2022. "A joint strategy based on ordering and insurance for mitigating the effects of supply chain disruption on risk-averse firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    12. Li, Zhiwen & Xu, Xianhao & Bai, Qingguo & Chen, Cheng & Wang, Hongwei & Xia, Peng, 2023. "Implications of information sharing on blockchain adoption in reducing carbon emissions: A mean–variance analysis," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    13. Jain, Tarun & Hazra, Jishnu & Cheng, T.C.E., 2018. "Sourcing under overconfident buyer and suppliers," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 93-109.
    14. Shoufeng Ji & Dan Zhao & Xiaoshuai Peng, 2018. "Joint Decisions on Emission Reduction and Inventory Replenishment with Overconfidence and Low-Carbon Preference," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, April.
    15. Sim, Jeongeun & Kim, Bosung, 2024. "Is green optimism good for the environment but bad for firms?—A study on green optimism in a supply chain," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    16. Christian Köster & Heike Y. Schenk-Mathes, 2016. "Explanatory and predictive power of the adaptive learning model: average and heterogeneous behavior in a newsvendor context," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 361-387, May.
    17. Wang, Lingling & Wu, Yong & Hu, Shengqiang, 2021. "Make-to-order supply chain coordination through option contract with random yields and overconfidence," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    18. Kopel, Michael & Ramani, Vinay, 2024. "The bright side of the planning fallacy in distribution channels," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 314(2), pages 540-551.
    19. Yan Zhang & Juan Li & Qinglong Gou, 2017. "An allocation game model with reciprocal behavior and its applications in supply chain pricing decisions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 258(2), pages 347-368, November.
    20. Wang, Yuyan & Zhang, Xiaozhen & Cheng, T.C.E. & Wu, Tsung-Hsien, 2023. "Choice of the co-opetition model for a new energy vehicle supply chain under government subsidies," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:1:p:284-:d:1559147. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.