Sustainability vs surveillance: Blockchain’s double-edged role in agriculture

The study identifies four structural tensions that shape blockchain's trajectory in sustainable food systems. One key contradiction revolves around centralization versus decentralization. Although blockchain is widely portrayed as a decentralized technology, its real-world application often results in permissioned, privately governed ledgers controlled by major actors. This undermines the democratic potential of the technology and reinforces existing asymmetries.

Blockchain is rapidly becoming a pillar of modern agriculture. From tracking food origins to reducing fraud and proving sustainability claims, the technology is being positioned as a critical infrastructure for transforming food systems. But as its adoption accelerates, a deeper conflict is emerging over who benefits, who controls the data, and whether blockchain can truly support just, inclusive, and ecologically sound food systems.

A new study published in Frontiers in Blockchain, under the title “Tensions in Stakeholder Perspectives on Blockchain Technology in Sustainable Food System Transformation”, explores how blockchain could reshape global agriculture while exposing deep divisions in stakeholder visions. Drawing from co-creative foresight workshops involving 124 participants across the agri-food value chain, including farmers, technologists, policymakers, and civil society actors, the study presents a nuanced picture of how blockchain’s promise intersects with political, ethical, and economic complexity.

What are the possible futures of blockchain-enabled agriculture?

Conducted under the EU Horizon-funded TRUSTyFOOD project, the research outlines three divergent future scenarios where blockchain supports different visions of sustainability. The first scenario is driven by large agribusinesses and technology companies focused on operational efficiency and transparent sourcing. The second is steered by public authorities using blockchain to enforce regulatory accountability and compliance. The third emerges from grassroots coalitions, emphasizing local control, community ownership, and ecologically embedded food practices. Each model offers contrasting pathways for implementation and carries specific risks and trade-offs, suggesting that blockchain's role in food systems is far from settled.

The first model envisions blockchain as an efficiency enhancer. In this scenario, global actors use the technology to streamline logistics, verify environmental claims, and facilitate green financing through tokenized assets such as carbon credits. The approach attracts capital and offers real-time traceability, yet it risks reinforcing centralized power, excluding smallholders, and limiting transparency by locking data in private chains.

The second scenario presents a governance-led model where blockchain is deployed by states and supranational regulators to ensure environmental compliance. While this framework can raise public trust and promote standardized monitoring, it also risks bureaucratic burden, surveillance concerns, and widening the gap between well-resourced and under-resourced actors.

The third scenario proposes a decentralized, community-based application of blockchain. In this context, cooperatives, SMEs, and NGOs use open-source infrastructure to support agroecological practices and ethical value chains. Despite its inclusivity and local responsiveness, the approach faces technical scalability issues and risks fragmenting standards across food systems.

What tensions threaten blockchain’s role in sustainable transformation?

The study identifies four structural tensions that shape blockchain's trajectory in sustainable food systems. One key contradiction revolves around centralization versus decentralization. Although blockchain is widely portrayed as a decentralized technology, its real-world application often results in permissioned, privately governed ledgers controlled by major actors. This undermines the democratic potential of the technology and reinforces existing asymmetries.

A second tension lies in inclusion versus exclusion. While blockchain can support smallholder inclusion, many implementations favor high-data-quality environments and automate verification in ways that marginalize less technologically equipped stakeholders. The third tension arises between transparency and privacy. While blockchain offers immutable traceability, participants expressed concern that sensitive commercial data and personal information could be exposed or misused. This has led some organizations to restrict access through permissioned systems, diminishing the public transparency originally promised by blockchain.

Finally, the study highlights the ideological divide surrounding tokenization. Some stakeholders support monetizing environmental assets to finance sustainability transitions, while others warn against commodifying nature and replacing collective stewardship with market logic.

As blockchain becomes a central infrastructure in the datafication of food systems, the study cautions against techno-solutionism. It argues that the effectiveness and ethical viability of blockchain depend not on its technical capacity but on the governance arrangements and value systems in which it is embedded. The research reveals that competing futures for blockchain are not only technical but political and moral. For example, whether blockchain is used to track carbon emissions or to enable community-owned certification systems hinges on who designs, controls, and benefits from the technology.

How should policymakers, developers and farmers respond?

Policy recommendations emerging from the study emphasize the importance of co-design processes, inclusive governance, and careful evaluation of blockchain’s fit for purpose. It urges governments, developers, and civil society to consider alternatives to blockchain where appropriate and to resist one-size-fits-all frameworks. Rather than defaulting to the most efficient or investor-friendly design, stakeholders are encouraged to critically assess whether blockchain genuinely advances sustainability, equity, and resilience. The study also highlights the need for regulatory mechanisms that ensure blockchain applications do not exacerbate inequality or replicate existing power dynamics under a digital guise.

This research makes clear that the stakes are high, not just for the future of farming and food systems, but for how society chooses to govern digital infrastructure.