Blockchain in the Cold Chain — Separating Signal from Noise for South African Operators

If you’ve attended a cold chain conference in the past five years, you’ve heard the blockchain pitch. Immutable temperature records. Automated compliance through smart contracts. Tamper-proof audit trails. End-to-end visibility from farm to fork. The slide decks are compelling. The pilot projects sound impressive. But ask most South African cold chain operators if they’re using blockchain, and you’ll get a blank stare — or a polite eye-roll.

That reaction isn’t unreasonable. Blockchain in cold chain has suffered from a hype cycle that promised everything and delivered mostly proof-of-concepts. Vendors led with the technology rather than the problem it solves, and operators rightly questioned whether another layer of complexity was what their supply chains actually needed.

But dismissing blockchain entirely in 2025 would be a mistake. The technology has matured significantly. The use cases have sharpened. And critically, external forces — EU regulatory requirements, AfCFTA trade corridor development, and escalating retailer pressure for supply chain transparency — are creating demand for exactly the kind of multi-party trust verification that blockchain provides.

Here’s the distinction that matters: blockchain isn’t a cold chain monitoring solution. It’s a trust layer for cold chain data. Understanding this difference is what separates a useful investment from an expensive distraction. This article explains where blockchain creates genuine value for South African operators, where simpler solutions work better, and what the practical adoption path looks like.

One important caveat before we begin: blockchain’s value depends entirely on standardised, reliable sensor data feeding into it. If your IoT systems are proprietary silos producing inconsistent data — the interoperability problem we explored in our previous editorial on IoT standardisation in the cold chain — then blockchain just makes that mess permanent and immutable. Standardised data first, trust layer second.

What Blockchain Actually Does (and Doesn’t Do) in Cold Chain

The 60-Second Technical Explanation

Let’s strip away the jargon and explain what blockchain actually does, written for operators rather than software developers.

A blockchain is a shared digital ledger that multiple parties can write to, but nobody can alter after the fact. Think of it like a temperature logbook that gets photocopied to every party in the supply chain simultaneously, where each entry is time-stamped and cryptographically locked. No single party can go back and change what was recorded, because every other party holds an identical copy that would expose the tampering.

In a cold chain context, this means sensor readings, location data, handoff events, and compliance checks get recorded as entries that all supply chain participants can independently verify but none can tamper with. The data isn’t stored in any one company’s server — it exists across the network.

Smart contracts add another layer: automated rules that execute when specific conditions are met. For example, if a temperature sensor records a reading above +8°C during pharmaceutical transport, the smart contract can automatically flag the shipment, notify all parties, and trigger the documented excursion protocol — without any human needing to make a phone call or send an email.

What Blockchain Solves — The Trust Problem

Cold chain data has a fundamental trust gap that most operators don’t think about until something goes wrong. The party recording the temperature data is often the same party with a financial incentive to show compliance. When a dispute arises over whether the cold chain was maintained — and with South Africa losing an estimated R1.5 billion annually to cold chain failures, disputes are common — the question becomes: whose data do you trust?

In a single-operator scenario, this isn’t really a problem. Your fleet, your cold rooms, your sensors — you trust your own data because you control the entire process. Blockchain adds little value here.

But in multi-party supply chains, the picture changes dramatically. Consider the journey of a South African table grape destined for a European supermarket: farm, packhouse, cold store, road transport to port, container terminal, shipping line, destination port, distribution centre, retail store. That’s eight or more handoff points, each involving a different organisation, each operating different monitoring systems, and each creating a potential trust gap.

Currently, these trust gaps are bridged by paper documentation, PDF temperature log exports, and good faith. All of which can be altered, lost, or disputed. Anyone who has dealt with a claim on a rejected shipment at a European port knows exactly how difficult it is to prove — or disprove — that the cold chain was maintained across five or six different parties.

Blockchain creates a shared, tamper-proof record across all parties. Nobody owns the data. Everybody can verify it. When a European customs inspector queries the temperature history of a shipment, the answer doesn’t come from the exporter’s internal records — it comes from a distributed ledger that every participant in the chain has verified.

What Blockchain Does NOT Solve

This is where honest assessment matters more than marketing material.

• Data quality. Blockchain makes data immutable, not accurate. If a sensor is miscalibrated by 2°C, blockchain preserves the wrong reading permanently and immutably. This is precisely why IoT standardisation and calibration — including SANAS-accredited sensor calibration under ISO/IEC 17025 — must be addressed before blockchain adds value. Garbage in, garbage out, except now the garbage is permanent.
• Real-time monitoring. Blockchain is not a monitoring system. Your IoT platform handles real-time alerts, dashboards, and operational responses. Blockchain records events after the fact for verification and compliance purposes. If you need to know that your cold room temperature just exceeded +5°C, you need a monitoring system with alerts — not a blockchain.
• Internal operations. For managing your own fleet or warehouse, a well-configured cloud monitoring platform with proper access controls is simpler, cheaper, and more practical. You don’t need a distributed trust mechanism for data you already trust.
• Regulatory compliance on its own. R638 and SAHPRA GDP requirements don’t mandate blockchain. They require accurate records, defined procedures, and demonstrable compliance. Blockchain is one way to assure record integrity, but it’s certainly not the only way. A properly configured monitoring system with data backups and audit trails can satisfy regulatory requirements without blockchain.

Where Blockchain Creates Real Value for SA Operators

Export Traceability — The Compelling Use Case

South Africa’s R85+ billion in temperature-sensitive exports flow through supply chains with five to eight handoffs between origin and destination. This is where the multi-party trust problem is most acute and where blockchain creates the most tangible value.

The regulatory landscape is tightening. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which took effect in December 2025 for large and medium companies with enforcement from June 2026, focuses on deforestation-linked commodities but is raising the traceability bar across all EU-bound supply chains. The December 2025 amendments confirmed a one-year postponement for full enforcement, with large and medium operators now facing a December 2026 deadline and small and micro enterprises pushed to June 2027. But the core due diligence requirements — geolocation data, risk assessments, traceability documentation — remain firmly in place.

While the EUDR primarily targets commodities like cattle, soya, wood, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, and rubber, the traceability infrastructure it demands is setting new expectations across all product categories entering the EU market. The EU Digital Product Passport requirements, currently emerging under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, will eventually require standardised environmental condition data throughout product lifecycles. South African exporters who can demonstrate blockchain-verified cold chain integrity may gain preferential market access as these requirements crystallise.

The stakes for Africa are substantial. The Commonwealth reports that Sub-Saharan Africa risks losing up to US$11 billion in annual export revenue if countries cannot meet the EUDR’s requirements, with over 59% of Africa’s cocoa exports and 41.6% of coffee exports EU-bound. While South Africa’s primary cold chain exports — fruit, wine, and seafood — are not the EUDR’s direct targets, the traceability standards being established will inevitably extend to all temperature-sensitive supply chains.

The PPECB already requires temperature records for perishable exports from South Africa. Blockchain could provide the integrity layer that transforms these records from “we trust the exporter’s internal data” to “independently verifiable by any party in the chain.” This is not a hypothetical scenario — it’s already being deployed.

The Australian Table Grapes Association (ATGA), in partnership with GS1 Australia and Digimarc, deployed GS1 Digital Link QR codes on over 840,000 units of export table grapes. Each pack carried a unique serialised code linking to EPCIS 2.0 events — including IoT temperature data — that consumers and supply chain participants could verify. The pilot demonstrated that standards-based traceability at commercial scale isn’t a future possibility; it’s a current reality.

The convergence between EPCIS 2.0 and distributed ledger technology is deliberate. The IOTA Foundation was an active contributor to the GS1 EPCIS 2.0 Mission Specific Working Group, specifically ensuring that the standard’s JSON-LD data structures and REST APIs are compatible with DLT integration. The data standard and the trust layer were designed to work together — EPCIS 2.0 provides the standardised format, blockchain provides the tamper-proof verification.

For South African fruit exporters, wine producers, and seafood operations shipping to the EU, this convergence represents a competitive opportunity. Demonstrating verifiable cold chain integrity through internationally recognised standards isn’t just about compliance — it’s about market differentiation in an increasingly crowded export landscape.

SADC Cross-Border Verification

The African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) is creating new trade corridors between countries with different regulatory frameworks, different infrastructure standards, and limited mechanisms for verifying cold chain compliance across borders.

Consider the current reality of a Johannesburg-to-Maputo pharmaceutical shipment. Temperature documentation relies on paper logs, bilateral trust between the parties, and manual checks at border crossings. There is no standardised digital verification mechanism. SADC cold chain standards have been proposed but remain unformalized, meaning cross-border shipments operate under inconsistent verification regimes.

A blockchain-enabled scenario would record sensor data to a shared ledger that customs and regulatory authorities in both countries can verify independently, without relying on either party’s internal records. FESARTA (Federation of Eastern and Southern African Road Transport Associations) is already working on cross-border transport facilitation — digital verification of cold chain compliance is a natural evolution of this work.

The barrier here is not primarily technological. It requires participating countries to recognise blockchain-verified records as legitimate documentation, which is a regulatory evolution, not just a technology deployment. But as the SADC region formalises its trade frameworks and as AfCFTA implementation accelerates, the infrastructure for cross-border cold chain verification needs to be built now.

Retailer Supply Chain Visibility

The Consumer Goods Council of South Africa (CGCSA) is pushing for greater supplier transparency in cold chain operations. Major South African retailers are increasingly asking their suppliers a straightforward question: can you prove the cold chain was maintained from origin to shelf?

The current answer, for most operators, involves paper trails, PDF exports from monitoring platforms, and periodic spot-check audits. Each retailer may have different documentation requirements, different formats, and different verification expectations. For a supplier serving multiple retailers, this creates a significant administrative burden with limited actual assurance.

Blockchain-enabled supply chain records offer a fundamentally different proposition. A verifiable, time-stamped record of every temperature reading and handoff event, from manufacturer or producer through distribution to retail delivery, that any authorised party can query through a standardised interface. Instead of producing different documentation for each retailer’s specific requirements, a blockchain-verified record provides a single source of truth.

This connects directly to the interoperability problem. Blockchain works best when sitting on top of standardised IoT data — specifically EPCIS 2.0 formatted events — rather than proprietary sensor outputs that require custom integration for every trading partner.

The Honest Assessment — Where Blockchain is Overkill

This section matters more than anything else in this article for establishing credibility. Not every cold chain problem needs blockchain, and responsible technology assessment means saying so clearly.

• Internal fleet monitoring. If you operate your own refrigerated fleet with your own sensors and your own monitoring platform, adding blockchain adds complexity and cost without meaningful benefit. You already trust your own data. A cloud-based IoT platform with proper access controls, automated backups, and audit logging provides everything you need for operational monitoring and regulatory compliance. This is the reality for the vast majority of South African cold chain operators today.
• Single-operator cold storage. Your cold room sensors, your monitoring dashboard, your compliance records. A well-implemented warehouse management system (WMS) with temperature integration is sufficient. R638 compliance requires accurate records and defined procedures — not distributed ledger technology.
• Small-scale local distribution. A courier running gel packs and data loggers within Gauteng doesn’t need immutable distributed ledger technology. They need calibrated sensors, consistent recording practices, and a monitoring system that alerts them when something goes wrong. The fundamentals of cold chain management remain more important than the technology layer sitting on top.
• Compliance documentation where you’re the sole responsible party. R638 and SAHPRA GDP require accurate records, defined procedures, and demonstrable compliance. A properly configured monitoring system with data backups meets these requirements without blockchain. Adding blockchain to satisfy a regulatory requirement that doesn’t demand it is spending money on a solution to a problem you don’t have.
• The cost-benefit reality. Blockchain implementations add infrastructure costs — nodes, integration work, and ongoing transaction costs depending on the platform. The return on investment only materialises when multiple untrusted parties benefit from shared, tamper-proof records. For most South African cold chain operators today, investment in reliable IoT infrastructure and data standardisation delivers more immediate and tangible value than blockchain.
• The vendor marketing filter. Be skeptical of monitoring platforms that lead with “blockchain-enabled” as their primary differentiator. Ask the direct question: what specific trust problem does this solve that my current system doesn’t? If the answer is “it makes your data immutable,” ask whether data immutability is actually your most pressing problem — or whether data accuracy, sensor calibration, and system interoperability deserve attention first.

The Technology Landscape — What’s Actually Available

Public vs. Consortium Blockchains

Understanding this distinction matters for evaluating cold chain blockchain solutions.

Public blockchains — such as Ethereum — offer maximum transparency where all transactions are visible to anyone. But they’re slower, more expensive per transaction, and carry energy consumption concerns that sit uncomfortably with sustainability-focused supply chains.

Private or consortium blockchains — such as Hyperledger Fabric, developed under the Linux Foundation — are faster, cheaper per transaction, and offer controlled access. The participants are known entities with defined roles and permissions. Most cold chain blockchain implementations use consortium models because the parties in a supply chain are known — the goal is shared verification among identified participants, not public transparency to the world.

Hyperledger Fabric in particular has emerged as a leading platform for supply chain applications because of its modular architecture, smart contract support (called “chaincode”), and channel system that allows different subsets of participants to share data selectively. This matters for cold chain: a pharmaceutical distributor might want its retailer customers to verify temperature compliance without exposing pricing or volume data.

Integration Architecture

The conceptual architecture for blockchain in cold chain follows a clear pipeline. IoT sensors collect temperature, humidity, and location data. A cloud monitoring platform processes this data for real-time alerts and operational management. EPCIS 2.0 formatting structures the data as standardised supply chain events. The blockchain layer then records these events as immutable entries that all authorised parties can verify.

The critical point: blockchain sits at the end of the data pipeline, not the beginning. Sensors and monitoring platforms do the heavy operational lifting. Blockchain provides the trust seal. Any implementation that tries to put blockchain at the centre of day-to-day monitoring operations is architecturally misguided.

GS1 EPCIS 2.0 + Blockchain Convergence

EPCIS 2.0, ratified by GS1 member organisations globally, was specifically designed with distributed ledger technology compatibility in mind. The IOTA Foundation was a core contributor to the EPCIS Mission Specific Working Group, providing technical expertise on ensuring the standard could integrate seamlessly with DLT.

The practical implications are significant. EPCIS 2.0 uses JSON-LD payloads — a blockchain-friendly data structure. The sensorElementList captures temperature, humidity, and location data in a standardised format that any compliant system can interpret. When these events are recorded on a blockchain, you get the combination of standardised data and tamper-proof verification.

Digimarc and the IOTA Foundation have demonstrated this convergence in practice through the EU Blockchain Pre-Commercial Procurement programme, building Digital Product Passport prototypes that combine GS1 Digital Link identification, EPCIS 2.0 event data, and blockchain verification for product lifecycle tracking.

The open-source OpenEPCIS implementation makes EPCIS 2.0 accessible to organisations that want to experiment with standards-based data capture without committing to proprietary platforms.

What SA Operators Should Evaluate

When assessing blockchain-enabled cold chain platforms, these questions cut through the marketing:

• Does the platform use open standards (EPCIS 2.0) or proprietary data formats? Proprietary formats create vendor lock-in that defeats the purpose of a shared verification system.
• Is the blockchain layer optional and modular, or tightly coupled to the monitoring system? You should be able to use the monitoring platform independently of the blockchain features.
• Can you export your data if you change providers? Data portability is non-negotiable.
• What’s the per-transaction cost model? Some platforms charge per event recorded, which can escalate quickly in high-frequency monitoring scenarios.
• Who runs the blockchain nodes? If only the vendor operates nodes, you’ve replaced “trust the exporter’s data” with “trust the vendor’s data” — defeating the entire purpose of decentralisation.

The SA Adoption Roadmap — Practical Steps

Phase 1: Foundation (Now – 12 months)

Focus on IoT standardisation first. Get your sensor infrastructure reliable, calibrated through SANAS-accredited services, and producing data in open, exportable formats. This work delivers immediate operational value regardless of whether blockchain is in your future.

Engage with GS1 South Africa on EPCIS 2.0 readiness. Even before implementing blockchain, understanding how your data maps to international supply chain event standards positions you for future integration.

If you’re in export supply chains, start mapping your full chain-of-custody from origin to port. Identify every handoff point, every change of custody, and every potential trust gap. This mapping exercise reveals where blockchain would — and wouldn’t — add value in your specific operations.

Review your current monitoring platform’s data export capabilities. Can you extract data in standard formats? Can you integrate with third-party systems via APIs? If your platform is a closed ecosystem, that’s a more urgent problem to solve than blockchain.

Phase 2: Pilot (12–24 months)

Identify your highest-value multi-party supply chain — most likely an export route or a multi-retailer distribution operation. Pilot blockchain verification on one product line or one trade route.

Prefer platforms built on EPCIS 2.0 and consortium blockchain architecture. The combination of standardised data and controlled-access verification is the most practical model for commercial cold chain operations.

Measure concrete outcomes: does the verifiable record reduce disputes? Speed up documentation processing? Open market access opportunities? Reduce the administrative burden of multi-retailer compliance? If the pilot doesn’t deliver measurable benefits on at least one of these dimensions, blockchain isn’t solving a real problem in your operation.

Phase 3: Scale (24–36 months)

Expand to additional supply chains based on pilot learnings. Push for industry consortium participation through organisations like the CGCSA, PPECB, and the GCCA South Africa chapter. Advocate for SADC recognition of blockchain-verified cold chain records.

Integrate blockchain-verified data with automated compliance reporting for R638, GDP, and export certification requirements. The real efficiency gains come when blockchain verification feeds directly into regulatory documentation rather than existing as a parallel system.

The realistic timeline. Most South African cold chain operators are in Phase 1 or pre-Phase 1 today. That’s appropriate. The technology needs to mature alongside South African regulatory frameworks, and the foundational work of IoT standardisation and data quality must come first. But operators in export supply chains should be actively preparing — EU requirements aren’t waiting for the industry to catch up, and the December 2026 EUDR enforcement date for large operators is now confirmed.

Conclusion

Blockchain in cold chain isn’t the revolution its earliest proponents promised, and it isn’t the irrelevant buzzword its critics dismiss. It’s a specific solution to a specific problem: creating trusted, tamper-proof records in supply chains where multiple parties need to verify cold chain integrity without trusting each other’s internal systems.

For South African operators, the practical value sits in three spaces: export traceability, where EU and international requirements are tightening measurably; cross-border SADC verification, where regulatory harmonisation is still developing and digital infrastructure needs to be built; and multi-retailer supply chain visibility, where documentation demands are multiplying.

But blockchain is a trust layer, not a monitoring solution. It depends entirely on the quality and standardisation of the IoT data feeding it. Which is why the interoperability work outlined in our IoT standardisation editorial isn’t just a nice technical discussion — it’s the foundation that makes blockchain useful rather than decorative.

The operators who will benefit most from blockchain are those who first solve the data quality and standardisation problem. Get your sensors calibrated. Get your data exportable in open formats. Map your supply chain handoffs. Then the trust layer has something worth trusting.

For a comprehensive view of the regulatory requirements that blockchain verification can support, see our South Africa’s Cold Chain Compliance Matrix.

Sources & References

About These Sources

This article draws on authoritative sources including international standards organisations (GS1, ISO), EU regulatory documentation, market research from major analysis firms, South African regulatory frameworks, academic peer-reviewed research, and real-world implementation case studies. All sources were verified as of February 2026 and represent the most current publicly available information on blockchain technology in cold chain applications.

Citation Methodology

Direct data points reference these sources. Where analysis extends beyond published data, the article clearly indicates operational experience and industry-specific assessment. Readers seeking additional detail on any cited statistic can access the source material directly through the URLs provided.

Currency Note

EUDR enforcement timelines, market projections, and technology deployment statuses reflect announcements and commitments as of early 2026. The EUDR regulatory landscape has seen multiple revisions and delays; readers should verify current status for time-sensitive compliance decisions.

Standards & Technology

• GS1 EPCIS 2.0 Standard — GS1’s flagship supply chain data sharing standard enabling visibility through standardised capture and sharing of event data, including sensor data for cold chain monitoring. Ratified by GS1 Member Organizations globally.
• IOTA Foundation — Ratification of the EPCIS 2.0 Standard — Details the IOTA Foundation’s core role as MSWG contributor in ensuring EPCIS 2.0 compatibility with distributed ledger technology, enabling standardised supply chain data to be anchored on DLT for authenticity and immutability.
• IOTA Foundation — Introducing EPCIS 2.0 — Technical overview of EPCIS 2.0 development, IOTA Foundation contributions to DLT integration, and collaboration with Zebra Technologies and EVRYTHNG (Digimarc) on reference architectures for trusted, decentralised supply chains.
• Digimarc — EPCIS 2.0: Transforming the Global Supply Chain — Practical deployment examples including ATGA table grapes traceability pilot with GS1 Digital Link QR codes and IoT temperature logging, demonstrating commercial-scale EPCIS 2.0 implementation.
• Digimarc — A Decentralized Blueprint for Digital Product Passports — Technical architecture for combining GS1 Digital Link identification, EPCIS 2.0 event data, and IOTA DLT for product lifecycle tracking under the EU Blockchain Pre-Commercial Procurement programme.
• OpenEPCIS — Open-source EPCIS 2.0 implementation providing accessible tools for standards-based supply chain data capture and sharing.
• Hyperledger Fabric — Enterprise-grade permissioned blockchain platform under the Linux Foundation, widely used for supply chain consortium blockchain applications due to its modular architecture, smart contract support, and channel-based data segregation.

EU Regulatory

• EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) — Regulation 2023/1115 — EU regulation requiring operators to ensure products placed on the EU market are deforestation-free, with traceability and due diligence obligations. Enforcement for large and medium operators confirmed at December 2026 following December 2025 amendments.
• IntegrityNext — EUDR Delay 2025/2026: What it Means for Supply Chains — Comprehensive analysis of the December 2025 EUDR amendments confirming one-year postponement and simplified obligations for downstream operators and small enterprises, published in Official Journal December 23, 2025.
• White & Case — European Deforestation Regulation: Implications for Africa’s Food Security — Legal analysis of EUDR impact on Sub-Saharan African countries, including US$11 billion export revenue risk and specific challenges facing smallholder farmers who lack traceability infrastructure.
• The Commonwealth — Sustainable Trade at a Crossroads: Sub-Saharan Africa and the EUDR — Analysis of the EUDR’s substantial economic impact on SSA, documenting the US$11 billion annual export revenue risk and highlighting that 59% of Africa’s cocoa exports and 41.6% of coffee exports are EU-bound.
• World Resources Institute — Statement: European Commission Protects EUDR’s Core Principles — WRI analysis of October 2025 Commission proposal maintaining enforcement timelines for large operators while simplifying obligations for smaller entities.

Market Data

• Future Market Insights — IoT for Cold Chain Monitoring Market — Market valued at USD 8.0 billion in 2025, projected to reach USD 29.6 billion by 2035 at 13.9% CAGR, with blockchain technology identified as a key driver for supply chain transparency and efficiency.
• MarketsandMarkets — Cold Chain Monitoring Market — Global cold chain monitoring market projected to grow from USD 8.31 billion in 2025 to USD 15.04 billion by 2030 at 12.6% CAGR, driven by rising demand for IoT-enabled solutions and regulatory compliance.

SA Regulatory & Industry

• R638 Regulations — South African Department of Health regulations governing transport and storage of perishable foodstuffs under the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act (Act 54 of 1972), specifying temperature requirements by food category and mandating monitoring, recording, and documentation.
• SAHPRA GDP Requirements — South African Health Products Regulatory Authority enforcement of Good Distribution Practice requirements for pharmaceutical cold chain, including temperature mapping, qualified equipment, continuous monitoring, and SANAS-calibrated sensors.
• PPECB Export Certification — Perishable Products Export Control Board framework for certifying temperature-controlled export shipments from South Africa, requiring temperature records for all perishable exports.
• CGCSA Supplier Codes of Practice — Consumer Goods Council of South Africa guidelines driving greater supplier transparency in cold chain operations, reflecting retailer expectations for verifiable cold chain integrity.
• SANAS Accreditation — South African National Accreditation System providing ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for calibration laboratories, critical for ensuring cold chain sensor accuracy and regulatory compliance.

African Trade & Regional

• AfCFTA Framework — African Continental Free Trade Area creating new trade corridors between countries with different cold chain regulatory frameworks, highlighting the need for cross-border digital verification mechanisms.
• FESARTA — Federation of Eastern and Southern African Road Transport Associations working on cross-border transport facilitation, with digital cold chain verification representing a natural evolution of their facilitation work.

Case Studies

• Australian Table Grapes Association (ATGA) — Commercial-scale deployment of GS1 Digital Link QR codes on 840,000+ units of export table grapes with EPCIS 2.0 event tracking including IoT temperature data, in partnership with GS1 Australia, Agriculture Victoria, Perfection Fresh, and Result Group.

Critical Analysis

• Springer — Blockchain in Supply Chain Management: A Comprehensive Review of Success Measurement Methods — Systematic literature review of 46 peer-reviewed papers (2008–2024) identifying blockchain limitations in SCM including scalability constraints, integration costs for SMEs, and absence of clear regulatory frameworks as key adoption barriers.
• ScienceDirect — Rethinking Operations and Supply Chain Management in the Blockchain Era — Academic analysis of the gap between blockchain’s conceptual promise and practical realisation in supply chains, identifying interoperability challenges, insufficient governance mechanisms, and lack of robust business models as barriers to adoption.
• Sharabati & Jreisat (2024) — Blockchain Technology Implementation in Supply Chain Management: A Literature Review — Comprehensive review examining blockchain adoption challenges including technical complexity, high implementation costs, and data privacy concerns alongside benefits of increased traceability and transparency. Published in Sustainability, 16(7), 2823.

Related Resources

• South Africa’s Cold Chain Compliance Matrix — Every regulation, certification, and requirement mapped by operator type
• ColdChainSA Technology Directory — Temperature monitoring, cold chain management software, and blockchain-enabled platforms
• ColdChainSA Cold Chain Glossary — Definitions for EPCIS, blockchain, IoT, and other cold chain technology terms

About ColdChainSA

ColdChainSA.com is South Africa’s dedicated cold chain industry directory and resource platform. ColdChainSA provides operator-credible technical content, a comprehensive business directory, and industry resources built from hands-on experience in South Africa’s temperature-controlled logistics sector.