Strategic Planning and Blockchain Governance Readiness for Sustainable Environmental Performance: An Exploratory COBIT-Based Study of Egypt’s Poultry Sector

Strategic Planning and Blockchain Governance Readiness for Sustainable Environmental Performance: An Exploratory COBIT-Based Study of Egypt’s Poultry Sector | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Strategic Planning and Blockchain Governance Readiness for Sustainable Environmental Performance: An Exploratory COBIT-Based Study of Egypt’s Poultry Sector Ahmed Hamza, Mahmoud Abuosekken This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9127112/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates the readiness for blockchain governance and its potential influence on sustainable environmental performance within Egypt’s poultry supply chain. While blockchain adoption remains absent in the sector, its perceived potential in improving traceability, transparency, and sustainability in agri-food systems is increasingly recognised. The study proposes a COBIT 2019-based governance model that integrates strategic planning and blockchain frameworks to enhance green supply chain practices and environmental performance. Environmental awareness is considered a moderating factor, and green supply chain practices serve as a mediator between blockchain governance readiness and environmental outcomes. The conceptual model is grounded in the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework and validated using perception-based data from poultry professionals across Egypt. Findings suggest that firms with strategic planning capabilities and governance readiness are better positioned to adopt blockchain for environmental goals. The study provides practical insights for aligning digital transformation and environmental sustainability in Egypt’s agricultural sector. Environmental Economics Agricultural Economics & Policy Management Information Retrieval and Management Blockchain Governance COBIT 2019 Environmental Awareness Environmental Performance Green Supply Chain Poultry Sector Strategic Planning Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction The agri-food sector, particularly poultry production, is a major contributor to Egypt’s environmental challenges due to its intensive use of water, energy, and feed, and its high organic waste output. As the country seeks to align with Egypt Vision 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Egypt Vision 2030, 2023), the integration of strategic environmental management practices becomes essential (Egypt Vision 2030, 2024). Blockchain technology, with its ability to improve traceability and data integrity, offers a promising digital solution (Li et al., 2025). However, its impact depends on how well it is governed and strategically aligned with sustainability goals (Aljebrini et al., 2025). COBIT 2019 is a globally recognised governance framework that provides structured protocols for managing emerging technologies, including blockchain (Amore et al., 2023; Ariffin & Ahmad, 2021; Nikbakht et al., 2025). Strategic planning and (Ahmed et al., 2023; Schwegler & Petty, 2025; Vandersmissen & George, 2023) also significantly influence how blockchain can be utilised effectively to enhance environmental performance (Qadri et al., 2025). This study explores these relationships and proposes a conceptual framework for enhancing governance and sustainability in Egypt’s poultry sector (Lavaei Adaryani et al., 2024). 2. Research Objectives 2.1 Examine the effect of Strategic Planning (SP) on Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR). 2.2 Examine the effect of BGR on GSCP. 2.3 Examine the effect of GSCP on EP. 2.4 Test whether GSCP mediates the BGR → EP link. 2.5 Test whether Environmental Awareness (EA) moderates the BGR → EP link. 3. Research Questions 3.1 Does SP positively influence BGR? 3.2 Does BGR positively influence GSCP? 3.3 Do GSCP improve EP? 3.4 Do GSCP carry the effect of BGR onto EP? 3.5 Is the BGR → EP effect stronger at higher EA? 4. Hypotheses 4.1 H1: Strategic planning has a positive effect on blockchain governance readiness. 4.2 H2: Blockchain governance readiness positively affects green supply chain practices. 4.3 H3: Green supply chain practices positively affect environmental performance. 4.4 H4: Green supply chain practices mediate the relationship between blockchain governance readiness and environmental performance. 4.5 H5: Environmental awareness positively moderates the relationship between blockchain governance readiness and environmental performance, such that the relationship is stronger when environmental awareness is high. 5. Literature Review 5.1 Strategic Planning (SP) and Technology Adoption (TA) Strategic planning (SP) aligns organisational vision, resources and monitoring routines, thereby steering digital transformation toward desired outcomes (Bryson, 2018; Ibidunni et al., 2025). In emerging-economy contexts, SP is particularly salient because resource constraints and regulatory volatility heighten the value of deliberate goal setting, prioritisation and review (Ejigu, 2023). However, empirical studies associate SP with greater innovation adoption and improved firm performance, especially in environmentally sensitive industries where technology choices carry compliance and reputation implications (Alahdal et al., 2025; Tumpa et al., 2025). Within the TOE lens, SP shapes the organisational and environmental pillars by clarifying sustainability objectives, allocating budgets and skills, and establishing risk/compliance routines that make adoption feasible (Aina, 2025; Hsu et al., 2025). In agri-food supply chains, such as Egypt’s poultry sector, characterised by dispersed actors and traceability gaps, SP also guides the selection of green use-cases and supplier requirements that digital tools should support (Elkoraichi et al., 2025). Therefore, the literature suggests: organisations with stronger SP exhibit higher Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR). (H1). 5.2 Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR) and Environmental Performance (EP) Research highlights blockchain’s potential for environmental governance through immutable records, end-to-end traceability and timely reporting (Al Amin et al., 2025; Nadime et al., 2025). It supports traceability in supply chains, improves accountability, and enables real-time reporting for compliance with environmental regulations when governance is in place, blockchain data can support greener procurement, logistics and supplier compliance, thereby improving environmental outcomes (Adomako et al., 2025; Cheong, 2025). However, benefits depend on governance readiness, the presence of roles, policies and monitoring routines that steer adoption toward strategic and regulatory goals (Iyer et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025). COBIT 2019, developed by ISACA, offers a structured protocol for aligning IT governance with strategic and environmental goals (ISACA, 2019). The literature also implies a process mechanism: governance capabilities enable green supply chain practices (GSCP), and these operational behaviours translate into higher environmental performance (EP). Moreover, environmental awareness (EA) is argued to amplify the salience of governance signals and the likelihood that managers act on them, strengthening the BGR–EP link in high-awareness organisations. Accordingly, the review supports: BGR → GSCP (H2) , GSCP → EP (H3) , an indirect effect BGR → GSCP → EP (H4) , and a positive moderation of EA on BGR → EP (H5). 5.3 Green Supply Chain Practices (GSCP) as a Mediator Green supply chain management (GSCP) refers to the incorporation of environmental concerns into procurement, production, distribution, and disposal processes (Hariyadi et al., 2025; Salisu et al., 2025). It is increasingly viewed as a mediator between digital transformation and sustainability performance (Junejo et al., 2025). Blockchain enhances GSCP by enabling transparency and verifying environmental claims (Maheshwari et al., 2025; L. W. Zhao et al., 2024). Studies by Aggarwal et al. (2024) and Danso et al. (2025) confirm that GSCP mediates the relationship between technology adoption and environmental outcomes, especially in sectors like agriculture and food processing (Aggarwal et al., 2024; Danso et al., 2025). Building on this literature and the context of Egypt’s poultry sector, we hypothesise: H2 : BGR positively influences GSCP. H3 : GSCP positively influences EP. H4 : GSCP mediates the relationship between BGR and EP. 5.4 Environmental Awareness (EA) as a Moderator Environmental awareness reflects an organisation’s strategic orientation toward environmental responsibility (Bloodgood & Morrow, 2003; Camacho et al., 2025). It affects decision-making, policy enforcement, and the integration of sustainability into operations (Khan et al., 2025; Ren et al., 2025; Sánchez-García et al., 2025). Firms with high environmental awareness are more likely to prioritise environmental performance and adopt supportive technologies such as blockchain (Han & Gooi, 2025; Isiaku & Adalier, 2025; Yahaya, 2025). As a moderator, awareness strengthens the effect of governance readiness and planning on performance outcomes (Aasa et al., 2025; Alsanie, 2025; Iglesias-Sánchez et al., 2025). Thus, consistent with the literature, we posit: H5. Environmental Awareness positively moderates the relationship between Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR) and Environmental Performance (EP), such that the BGR → EP effect is stronger at higher levels of EA. (Note: EA is treated as a climate/priority construct, distinct from GSCP’s operational practices, so it moderates BGR → EP rather than directly replacing or mediating through GSCP.) 5.5 Environmental Performance (EP) Environmental performance refers to a firm's ability to manage emissions, waste, resource consumption, and compliance with environmental regulations (Costa & Opare, 2025; Siddiqi et al., 2025). It is often used as a measure of sustainability outcomes in corporate and industrial settings (Ahsan, 2025; Zheng et al., 2025). In the poultry industry, improving environmental performance is especially important due to its waste-intensive and resource-heavy nature (de Abreu Filho et al., 2025; Rodrigues et al., 2025). Metrics such as energy efficiency, waste minimisation, and pollution control are central to evaluating environmental impact (Bigiotti et al., 2025; Sathish et al., 2025). 5.6 Theoretical Framework and Sectoral Context The Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework supports a holistic understanding of innovation adoption (Hsu et al., 2025; Xu et al., 2025). It integrates technological factors (e.g., blockchain), organisational elements (e.g., strategic planning), and environmental influences (e.g., regulation, awareness) (Alnoor et al., 2025; Benchis et al., 2025; Dai, 2025; Putri et al., 2025; Teng et al., 2025). This study also contextualises the framework within Egypt's poultry sector, which contributes significantly to the national economy and food security but faces mounting environmental pressures (Danese & Romano, 2025; G. Zhao et al., 2025). Issues such as unmanaged organic waste, high water and feed use, and limited traceability present opportunities for digital and strategic intervention (Satyro et al., 2024; Sultan, 2025). In this study, TOE structures the proposed relationships among the constructs as follows: Table 1 TOE-based mapping of study variables and sectoral context (Egypt’s poultry supply chain) by the researchers. TOE context Focus in agri-food governance Construct(s) in this model Technology Capability to evaluate, direct, and monitor blockchain in line with policies, risk controls, and data integrity BGR (COBIT-aligned governance readiness) Organization Strategic intent and internal processes that prioritize sustainability and operationalize it in supply chains SP (strategic vision/review; tech-integrated planning) and GSCP (green procurement, logistics, supplier compliance) Environment Regulatory expectations, sectoral norms, and salience of environmental issues EA (environmental awareness as a contextual moderator) Outcome Realized sustainability performance EP (pollution/resource management; compliance/continuous improvement) 6. Materials and Methods This study adopts an exploratory, quantitative design to investigate the relationships between strategic planning, blockchain governance readiness (based on COBIT 2019), green supply chain practices, environmental awareness, and sustainable environmental performance in Egypt’s poultry sector. 6.1 Population and Sampling The target population includes managers, technical officers, and environmental professionals working in Egypt’s poultry supply chain, specifically in production, processing, logistics, and waste management. According to the latest data from Egypt’s Ministry of Agriculture and Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), the poultry industry comprises approximately 30,000 commercial farms and hundreds of medium to large integrated producers across various governorates. To ensure representativeness, a stratified random sampling technique was employed, stratifying by: Geographic region (Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt, Delta) Firm type (independent farms, integrated companies) Role (managerial, operational, environmental) A total of 120 participants were selected proportionally from these random strata to reflect the diversity of operational and governance practices across Egypt’s poultry sector. 6.2 Instrument and Data Collection A structured questionnaire was developed, incorporating validated items from prior literature and adapted to the local context. The instrument used five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was divided into the following sections: Strategic Planning (SP) has two dimensions, 6 items Q1-Q6. Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR) has two dimensions, 6 items Q7–Q10, Q26–Q27; COBIT-aligned. Green Supply Chain Practices (GSCP) has two dimensions, 6 items Q11–Q15, Q28. Environmental Awareness (EA) has two dimensions, 6 items Q16–Q20, Q29. Environmental Performance (EP) has two dimensions, 6 items Q21–Q25, Q30. The questionnaire was reviewed by academic experts and piloted with 10 professionals to ensure clarity. Data were collected in July - August 2025 via field visits and online distribution using Google Forms. 6.3 Data Analysis The data were analysed using Python 3.11 in Google Colab, employing the following packages and techniques: pandas, numpy: Data cleaning, transformation, and descriptive statistics pingouin, scipy.stats, statsmodels: Correlation, reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), and regression analysis semopy: Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to test direct, mediating, and moderating effects matplotlib, seaborn: Visualisation of model relationships and interaction effects Specific analysis steps included: Reliability testing (Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.80) Normality assessment using the Shapiro-Wilk test Multicollinearity checks via VIF scores Mediation analysis using bootstrapping (5,000 resamples) Moderation analysis using interaction terms This rigorous quantitative approach enables a robust understanding of the conceptual relationships within the proposed model and offers empirical insights for future adoption of blockchain governance protocols in environmental sustainability. 7. Results and Discussion 7.1 Descriptive Analysis The final dataset included responses from 120 participants, representing diverse strata across firm types and regions. Most respondents held managerial or technical roles, with over 60% affiliated with integrated poultry firms. Descriptive statistics showed moderate to high levels of agreement on all key constructs, indicating general awareness and perceived relevance of strategic planning, blockchain governance readiness, and environmental performance. 7.2 Reliability and Validity All scales demonstrated high internal consistency: Strategic Planning (α = 0.88) Blockchain Governance Readiness (α = 0.91) Green Supply Chain Practices (α = 0.85) Environmental Awareness (α = 0.87) Environmental Performance (α = 0.89) Exploratory factor analysis confirmed the convergent validity of each construct, with factor loadings >0.70 and AVEs >0.50. 7.3 Hypothesis Testing and Model Results A Structural Equation Model (SEM) using the semopy package was fitted to test the hypotheses: H1: Strategic Planning → Blockchain Governance Readiness Supported (β = 0.62, p < 0.001) Interpretation: Firms with clear strategic visions are more likely to plan for or consider adopting blockchain governance aligned with COBIT 2019. H2: Blockchain Governance Readiness → Green Supply Chain Practices Supported (β = 0.59, p < 0.001) Interpretation: Even at the readiness stage, blockchain frameworks influence sustainability-focused supply chain thinking. H3: Green Supply Chain Practices → Environmental Performance Supported (β = 0.53, p < 0.001) H4 (Mediation): Blockchain Governance Readiness → GSCP → Environmental Performance Partial mediation confirmed by bootstrapping (95% CI does not include zero) H5 (Moderation): Environmental Awareness moderates BGR → Environmental Performance Supported (interaction β = 0.34, p < 0.01) 7.4 Discussion The findings affirm that strategic planning is a cornerstone of digital governance readiness, even before actual implementation. This aligns with Bryson (2018), who argued that strategic foresight enables more structured innovation pathways in emerging markets. The positive association between blockchain governance readiness and green practices suggests that the poultry sector is open to integrating sustainability-oriented technologies, especially when framed under structured protocols like COBIT 2019. Importantly, the mediation role of green supply chain practices highlights that blockchain cannot directly influence environmental outcomes unless operationalised through eco-responsible practices. This echoes the work of Alahdal et al. (2025) and Tumpa et al. (2025), who emphasised GSCP as a transmission mechanism for sustainability outcomes. Lastly, the moderating role of environmental awareness confirms that a culture of sustainability enhances the effect of governance readiness on performance. High-awareness firms showed a stronger intent to pursue future blockchain adoption for environmental gain, even without current deployment. Objective Research Question Hypothesis Key Result (SEM) Verdict O1. Examine the effect of Strategic Planning (SP) on Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR). RQ1. Does SP positively influence BGR? H1: SP → BGR (+) β = 0.62, p < .001 Supported O2. Examine the effect of BGR on GSCP. RQ2. Does BGR positively influence GSCP? H2: BGR → GSCP (+) β = 0.59, p < .001 Supported O3. Examine the effect of GSCP on EP. RQ3. Do GSCP improve EP? H3: GSCP → EP (+) β = 0.53, p 0) Bootstrap (5,000): indirect sig. (95% CI ≠ 0); partial mediation Supported (partial) O5. Test whether Environmental Awareness (EA) moderates the BGR → EP link. RQ5. Is the BGR → EP effect stronger at higher EA? H5: BGR × EA → EP (+) Interaction β = 0.34, p < .01; stronger slope at high EA Supported 8. Conclusion This exploratory study offers a conceptual and empirical examination of how strategic planning and blockchain governance readiness, guided by the COBIT 2019 framework, can support sustainable environmental performance in Egypt’s poultry sector. While blockchain technology has not yet been widely implemented in this industry, the results underscore the importance of organisational preparedness and governance structures in shaping environmental outcomes. The findings confirm that: Strategic planning is a critical driver of blockchain governance readiness. Blockchain governance readiness enhances green supply chain practices, which in turn improve environmental performance. Environmental awareness amplifies the effectiveness of governance readiness in promoting sustainability. These insights suggest that even in the absence of widespread technology adoption, organisations can take proactive steps to build readiness through planning, awareness, and adoption of governance frameworks such as COBIT 2019. By doing so, they position themselves to better respond to future environmental regulations, consumer expectations, and sustainability standards. The study provides a COBIT-based model that can be adapted for use across other agri-food sectors in Egypt and similar emerging markets. It also sets the foundation for future research and policy discussions around the digital transformation of environmental governance in developing economies. Declarations Participant consent statement: This study received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Environmental Studies & Research Institute (ESRI), University of Sadat City, Egypt, under ethical approval number REC/ESRI/USC/7/15-03-2025. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge the support of the Environmental Studies and Research Institute (ESRI), University of Sadat City, and the participants from the poultry sector for their valuable insights. References Aasa, O. P., Jesuleye, O. A., & Adepoju, A. O. (2025). Moderating role of environmental awareness on the relationship between greening practices and environmental performance of Nigerian public university. International Journal of Environment and Waste Management , 37 (1), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2025.146387;REQUESTEDJOURNAL:JOURNAL:IJEWM;ISSUE:ISSUE:10.1504/IJEWM.2025.37.ISSUE-1;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER Adomako, R. B., Boakye, P. B., & Salapki, A. (2025). Tech-driven governance for sustainability: enhancing environmental disclosure through corporate governance and innovation in emerging market. SN Business and Economics , 5 (7), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43546-025-00852-5/TABLES/8 Aggarwal, M., Rani, P., Rani, P., & Sharma, P. (2024). Revolutionizing agri-food supply chain management with blockchain-based traceability and navigation integration. Cluster Computing , 27 (9), 12919–12942. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10586-024-04609-X/TABLES/6 Ahmed, A. M. H. A., Elemam, W. E., & Abuosekken, M. S. (2023). The Role of Strategic Planning in Environmental Crisis Management Article Review and Case Study. Egypt International Journal of Environmental Studies and Researches , 2 (4), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.21608/ijesr.2023.346718 Ahsan, M. J. (2025). Green leadership and innovation: catalysts for environmental performance in Italian manufacturing. International Journal of Organizational Analysis , 33 (7), 1646–1669. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2024-4450 Aina, A. T. (2025). Effect of Technology Organization Environment Framework in Business Strategy on Decision Making of Small and Medium Enterprises in Lagos, Nigeria. FUDMA Journal of Accounting and Finance Research [FUJAFR] , 3 (2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.33003/FUJAFR-2025.V3I2.157.1-15 Al Amin, M., Baldacci, R., & Kerbache, L. (2025). Blockchain-based green supply chain management framework for sustainable practices in Bangladeshi RMG industries. Discover Sustainability , 6 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-025-01196-8/TABLES/1 Alahdal, W. M., Pandey, D. K., Sahu, M., Nguyen, T., & Hashim, H. A. (2025). Environmental, social and governance and earnings management research: current trends and future research. Accounting Research Journal . https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-05-2024-0174 Aljebrini, A., Dogruyol, K., & Ahmaro, I. Y. Y. (2025). How Strategic Planning Enhances ESG: Evidence from Mission Statements. Sustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 595 , 17 (2), 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17020595 Alnoor, A., Abbas, S., Sadaa, A. M., Chew, X. Y., & Bayram, G. E. (2025). Navigating the power of blockchain strategy: Analysis of technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework and innovation resistance theory using PLS-SEM and ANN insights. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 214 , 124044. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2025.124044 Alsanie, G. (2025). Investigating the Impact of Digitalization on Resource Use, Energy Use, and Waste Reduction Towards Sustainability: Considering Environmental Awareness as a Moderator. Sustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 4073 , 17 (9), 4073. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17094073 Amore, E., Dilger, T., Ploder, C., Bernsteiner, R., & Mezzenzana, M. (2023). Leverage the COBIT 2019 Design Toolkit in an SME Context: A Multiple Case Study. KnE Social Sciences , 73-101–173–101. https://doi.org/10.18502/KSS.V8I1.12636 Ariffin, K. A. Z., & Ahmad, F. H. (2021). Indicators for maturity and readiness for digital forensic investigation in era of industrial revolution 4.0. Computers & Security , 105 , 102237. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSE.2021.102237 Benchis, M. P., Shahzad, K., & Dan, S. (2025). Comparative analysis of blockchain adoption in the public and private sectors. A technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework approach. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge , 10 (4), 100746. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JIK.2025.100746 Bigiotti, S., Costantino, C., Patriarca, A., Mancini, G., Provolo, G., Recanatesi, F., Ripa, M. N., & Marucci, A. (2025). Energy Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability in Rural Buildings: A Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Integration in Poultry Tunnels—A Case Study in Central Italy. Applied Sciences 2025, Vol. 15, Page 5094 , 15 (9), 5094. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP15095094 Bloodgood, J. M., & Morrow, J. L. (2003). Strategic Organizational Change: Exploring the Roles of Environmental Structure, Internal Conscious Awareness and Knowledge*. Journal of Management Studies , 40 (7), 1761–1782. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00399 Bryson, J. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement . https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xqVFDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR14&dq=Bryson,+J.+M.+(2018).+Strategic+planning+for+public+and+nonprofit+organisations:+A+guide+to+strengthening+and+sustaining+organisational+achievement.+John+Wiley+%26+Sons.&ots=VtcnQIiemn&sig=dpCTbrafSCwPuPVQOcW45hmA8LI Camacho, L. J., Banks, M., Sookhai, S., & Concepción, E. (2025). Redimensioning the Theory of Planned Behavior on Workplace Energy Saving Intention: The Mediating Role of Environmental Knowledge and Organizational Culture. Sustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 3574 , 17 (8), 3574. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17083574 Cheong, B. C. (2025). Leveraging blockchain for enhanced transparency and traceability in sustainable supply chains. Discover Analytics 2025 3:1 , 3 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/S44257-025-00032-7 Costa, M. D., & Opare, S. (2025). Impact of Corporate Culture on Environmental Performance. Journal of Business Ethics , 196 (1), 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-024-05674-3/TABLES/10 Dai, X. (2025). TOE Framework-Based Digital Strategy Analysis for New Energy Vehicle Enterprises . 545–558. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-734-2_61 Danese, P., & Romano, P. (2025). Blockchain Systems in Food Supply Chains: An Interpretation Through the Lens of Agency and Technology–Organization–Environment Theories. Journal of Business Logistics , 46 (3), e70019. https://doi.org/10.1111/JBL.70019 Danso, S. A., Meng, Q., Li, Z., Amoako, T., & Quansah, C. E. (2025). Investigating the Impacts of Green Procurement on Supply Chain Resilience Through Supply Chain Collaboration: The Moderating Role of Human Resource Practices. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13132-024-02308-X/METRICS de Abreu Filho, H. R., Rufino, J. P. F., da Silva Gomes, M. F., Paixão, R. M., Carvalho, J. R., de Abreu, J. F. S., & de Oliveira, A. T. (2025). Environmental, technological, and animal welfare challenges in Latin American poultry production: a systematic review of sustainability and efficiency. World’s Poultry Science Journal . https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2025.2534629;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER Egypt Vision 2030. (2024). Environment Pillar - Egypt 2030 . Egypt Vision 2030. http://sdsegypt2030.com/environmental-dimension/environment-axis/?lang=en Egypt Vision 2030. (2023). Egypt,s Updated Vision 2030. In Ministry of Planning and Economic Development . moz-extension://4f6c7b1d-f0a4-4ccc-beed-abcb08bcd4bf/enhanced-reader.html?openApp&pdf=https%3A%2F%2Fmped.gov.eg%2FFiles%2FEgypt_Vision_2030_EnglishDigitalUse.pdf Ejigu, M. E. (2023). Does Strategic Planning & Planning Resources Influence the Performance of Financial Institutions? Roles of Managerial Involvement and Institutional Capability. Global Business Review . https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509231169358/ASSET/5D0E7CEE-5469-4795-ABD3-AD5DCA92DA56/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_09721509231169358-FIG1.JPG Elkoraichi, Y., Elfezazi, S., & Belhadi, A. (2025). Analysis of barriers to blockchain technology adoption in the African agri-food supply chain. Discover Sustainability , 6 (1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-025-01125-9/METRICS Han, X., & Gooi, L. M. (2025). Multi-Level Determinants of Sustainable Blockchain Technology Adoption in SCM: Individual, Organisational, and Societal Perspectives. Sustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 2621 , 17 (6), 2621. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17062621 Hariyadi, E., Wong, W. K., & Negash, Y. T. (2025). Sustainable supply chain collaboration in construction and demolition waste management: green innovation for sustainability performance. Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10163-025-02291-8/TABLES/1 Hsu, S., Gligor, D., Garg, V., Gölgeci, I., & Choi, R.-J. (2025). Exploring supply chain capabilities as drivers for willingness to adopt blockchain technology using a technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework. Production Planning & Control , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2025.2533186 Ibidunni, A. S., Oyewo, O. O., Nwokedike, F., & Ibidunni, O. M. (2025). Accomplishing SMEs’ performance through firm resilience and strategic planning. Journal of the International Council for Small Business . https://doi.org/10.1080/26437015.2025.2522268;JOURNAL:JOURNAL:UCSB20;SUBPAGE:STRING:ACCESS Iglesias-Sánchez, P., Jambrino-Maldonado, C., Zhang, J., Shao, X., & Sun, T. (2025). How Does Environmental Sustainability Commitment Affect Corporate Environmental Performance: A Chain Mediation Model. Sustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 3461 , 17 (8), 3461. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17083461 ISACA. (2019). COBIT 2019 Framework Governance and Management Objectives . www.isaca.org/COBITuse. Isiaku, L., & Adalier, A. (2025). Analyzing the barriers to blockchain adoption in educational sectors: a comprehensive literature review using the Technology-Organizational-Environment (TOE) framework. On the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures , 33 (1), 32–60. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-05-2024-0029 Iyer, R., Maralapalle, V., & Mahesh, P. (2025). Developments of Corporate Governance Regulations . 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-6366-8_24 Junejo, I., Sohu, J. M., Alwadi, B. M., Ejaz, F., Nasir, A., & Hossain, M. B. (2025). Green supply chain management and SMEs sustainable performance in developing country: role of green knowledge sharing, green innovation and big data-driven supply chain. Discover Sustainability , 6 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-025-01055-6/METRICS Khan, F., Abbass, K., Qun, W., & Grebinevych, O. (2025). Moderating role of digital media on environmental awareness and environmental beliefs to shape farmers’ behavioral intentions towards sustainable agricultural land conservation practices. Journal of Environmental Management , 373 , 123745. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2024.123745 Lavaei Adaryani, R., Palouj, M., Karbasioun, M., Asadi, A., Gholami, H., Kianirad, A., & Joodi Damirchi, M. (2024). Antecedents of blockchain adoption in the poultry supply chain: An extended UTAUT model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 202 , 123309. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2024.123309 Li, J., Han, D., Weng, T. H., Wu, H., Li, K. C., & Castiglione, A. (2025). A secure data storage and sharing scheme for port supply chain based on blockchain and dynamic searchable encryption. Computer Standards & Interfaces , 91 , 103887. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSI.2024.103887 Liu, X., Dong, F. H., Shui, W., & Geng, G. (2025). Blockchain in digital cultural heritage resources: technological integration, consensus mechanisms, and future directions. Npj Heritage Science , 13 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/S40494-025-01818-4;KWRD=MATERIALS+SCIENCE Maheshwari, S., Jaggi, C. K., & Gautam, P. (2025). A state-of-the-art review of green supply chain management: observations and business insights. Annals of Operations Research 2025 , 1–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10479-025-06619-3 Nadime, K. L., Benhra, J., Benabbou, R., & Mouatassim, S. (2025). The Impact of Emerging Blockchain Trends on Supply Chain Management. Operations Research Forum , 6 (1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43069-025-00418-Z/METRICS Nikbakht, M., Rouhani, S., & Mojtahed, V. (2025). A novel ranking model for information technology security controls through COBIT and MCDM. Records Management Journal . https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-03-2024-0007/1255795/A-NOVEL-RANKING-MODEL-FOR-INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY Putri, E., Bandi, B., Widarjo, W., & Arifin, T. (2025). The value of cloud accounting for MSMEs: a Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework perspective. Cogent Business & Management , 12 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2494712 Qadri, H. M. ud D., Ali, H., & Mustafa, A. U. (2025). Relationship between environmental performance indices and blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies: Evidence from countries in Europe and America. Regional Sustainability , 6 (2), 100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REGSUS.2025.100214 Ren, Z., Shan, Y., Jian, Z., & Zhu, D. (2025). Evaluating the forward-looking perspectives of environmental policy enforcement and institutional framework in the pursuit of a circular economy: A moments-quantile approach. Journal of Environmental Management , 382 , 125442. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2025.125442 Rodrigues, V. D. V., Wander, A. E., & Rosa, F. S. da. (2025). Poultry Eco-Controls: Performance and Accounting. Agriculture 2025, Vol. 15, Page 1311 , 15 (12), 1311. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRICULTURE15121311 Salisu, M. A., Bamiro, N. B., Elegbede, I. O., & Rus, R. C. (2025). Farm-to-Fork Framework Supply Chain for Integration of Green Economy for Halal Industry Sustainability. Green and Blue Economy Frameworks for Halal Industry Sustainability , 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-1729-6_1 Sánchez-García, E., Martínez-Falcó, J., Marco-Lajara, B., & Zakimova, A. (2025). Achieving environmentally responsible production through green managerial awareness, human resource management and employee behavior. Journal of Environmental Management , 373 , 123739. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2024.123739 Sathish, T., Saravanan, R., Saidani, T., Faisal, R. S., Hourani, A. O., Shangdiar, S., & Amesho, K. T. T. (2025). Low-emission nano-fuels from chicken fat waste: Performance and environmental impact assessment in CI engines. Results in Engineering , 26 , 105191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RINENG.2025.105191 Satyro, W. C., Contador, J. C., Gomes, J. A., Monken, S. F. de P., Barbosa, A. P., Bizarrias, F. S., Contador, J. L., Silva, L. S., & Prado, R. G. (2024). Technology-Organization-External-Sustainability (TOES) Framework for Technology Adoption: Critical Analysis of Models for Industry 4.0 Implementation Projects. Sustainability 2024, Vol. 16, Page 11064 , 16 (24), 11064. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU162411064 Schwegler, Y. O., & Petty, J. S. (2025). How environmental awareness and concern affect environmental entrepreneurial intent. Journal of Business Venturing , 40 (2), 106470. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2024.106470 Siddiqi, R. A., Codini, A. P., Ishaq, M. I., Jamali, D. R., & Raza, A. (2025). Sustainable supply chain, dynamic capabilities, eco-innovation, and environmental performance in an emerging economy. Business Strategy and the Environment , 34 (1), 338–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.3976;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER Sultan, A. A. (2025). Blockchain technology adoption in food supply chains: key factors, impacts and challenges. International Journal of Organizational Analysis . https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2024-4790/1259153/BLOCKCHAIN-TECHNOLOGY-ADOPTION-IN-FOOD-SUPPLY Teng, Y., Shang, K. C., Wang, H. C., Kuo, S. Y., & Lu, C. S. (2025). The implementation of blockchain adoption in China’s manufacturing industry: the technology organization environment (TOE) method. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 12 (1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41599-025-04570-Z;SUBJMETA=4000,4001,4014;KWRD=BUSINESS+AND+MANAGEMENT Tumpa, R. J., Naeni, L. M., Afzal, F., & Ghanbaripour, A. N. (2025). Leveraging digital technology to improve environmental, social, and governance performance of infrastructure projects. Management Decision , 63 (13), 455–496. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2024-0818 Vandersmissen, L., & George, B. (2023). Strategic planning in public organizations: reviewing 35 years of research. International Public Management Journal . https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2023.2271901 Wang, J., Yang, Y., Liu, Y., & Shi, W. (n.d.). Managing cities: environmental regulation, technological innovation and ecological efficiency. Management Decision , 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2024-2544 Xu, D., Huang, B., Shi, S., & Zhang, X. (2025). A Configurational Analysis of Green Development in Forestry Enterprises Based on the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) Framework. Forests 2025, Vol. 16, Page 744 , 16 (5), 744. https://doi.org/10.3390/F16050744 Yahaya, P. D. O. A. (2025). BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.5130253 Zhao, G., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Sutrisno, A. (2025). A Technology-Organization-Environment Decision Framework for Understanding Emerging Technology Adoption on Farms: An Empirical Investigation from China. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing , 546 LNBIP , 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-90863-7_1 Zhao, L. W., Jin, S., & Gao, P. (2024). Dynamics analysis of green supply chain under the conditions of demand uncertainty and blockchain technology. Scientific Reports , 14 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-024-76616-2/FIGURES/10 Zheng, Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y., Meng, X., & Zhang, P. (2025). Greening the future: How green manufacturing shapes corporate environmental and ESG success. International Review of Financial Analysis , 100 , 103994. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IRFA.2025.103994 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9127112","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":606293221,"identity":"e9218636-004b-4769-bd56-d80fe3a6ea33","order_by":0,"name":"Ahmed Hamza","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2101-7866","institution":"University of Sadat City","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ahmed","middleName":"","lastName":"Hamza","suffix":""},{"id":606293222,"identity":"9ead1d2b-8060-407b-a159-3001b66ce43a","order_by":1,"name":"Mahmoud Abuosekken","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2544-616X","institution":"University of Sadat City","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mahmoud","middleName":"","lastName":"Abuosekken","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-03-15 08:08:59","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":true,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9127112/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9127112/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104874348,"identity":"d28751b6-8abf-408d-b87c-b908ecd97c5f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 08:30:43","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":58441,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptual framework (GSCP model) for Egypt’s poultry sector by the researchers.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStrategic Planning (SP) enhances Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR) (H1). BGR promotes Green Supply Chain Practices (GSCP) (H2), and GSCP improves Environmental Performance (EP) (H3). The purple path represents the direct BGR → EP effect used to test mediation via GSCP (H4). Environmental Awareness (EA) moderates the BGR → EP relationship, strengthening it at higher levels of EA (H5). The dotted panel groups the planning–governance constructs (SP and BGR). Abbreviations: SP = Strategic Planning; BGR = Blockchain Governance Readiness; GSCP = Green Supply Chain Practices; EA = Environmental Awareness; EP = Environmental Performance.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9127112/v1/163d5d09a2c783cc02e79271.png"},{"id":104874347,"identity":"7081199b-c781-4fff-bf1c-74e428cf7add","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-18 08:30:42","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":108589,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCorrelation Heatmap of Key Variables by the researchers.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9127112/v1/9157c6eb4968760ab2bd00c7.png"},{"id":105033831,"identity":"96245316-294e-45e3-982b-bf29b9d0d2a9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-20 07:21:54","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1013958,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9127112/v1/7e132036-688b-46d6-a5ef-62339583d743.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eStrategic Planning and Blockchain Governance Readiness for Sustainable Environmental Performance: An Exploratory COBIT-Based Study of Egypt’s Poultry Sector\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe agri-food sector, particularly poultry production, is a major contributor to Egypt\u0026rsquo;s environmental challenges due to its intensive use of water, energy, and feed, and its high organic waste output. As the country seeks to align with Egypt Vision 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Egypt Vision 2030, 2023), the integration of strategic environmental management practices becomes essential (Egypt \u0026nbsp;Vision 2030, 2024). Blockchain technology, with its ability to improve traceability and data integrity, offers a promising digital solution (Li et al., 2025). However, its impact depends on how well it is governed and strategically aligned with sustainability goals (Aljebrini et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCOBIT 2019 is a globally recognised governance framework that provides structured protocols for managing emerging technologies, including blockchain (Amore et al., 2023; Ariffin \u0026amp; Ahmad, 2021; Nikbakht et al., 2025). Strategic planning and (Ahmed et al., 2023; Schwegler \u0026amp; Petty, 2025; Vandersmissen \u0026amp; George, 2023) also significantly influence how blockchain can be utilised effectively to enhance environmental performance (Qadri et al., 2025). This study explores these relationships and proposes a conceptual framework for enhancing governance and sustainability in Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry sector (Lavaei Adaryani et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Research Objectives","content":"\u003cp\u003e2.1 Examine the effect of Strategic Planning (SP) on Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.2 Examine the effect of BGR on GSCP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.3 Examine the effect of GSCP on EP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.4 Test whether GSCP mediates the BGR \u0026rarr; EP link.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.5 Test whether Environmental Awareness (EA) moderates the BGR \u0026rarr; EP link.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Research Questions","content":"\u003cp\u003e3.1 Does SP positively influence BGR?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.2 Does BGR positively influence GSCP?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.3 Do GSCP improve EP?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.4 Do GSCP carry the effect of BGR onto EP?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.5 Is the BGR \u0026rarr; EP effect stronger at higher EA?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Hypotheses","content":"\u003cp\u003e4.1 H1: Strategic planning has a positive effect on blockchain governance readiness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.2 H2: Blockchain governance readiness positively affects green supply chain practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.3 H3: Green supply chain practices positively affect environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.4 H4: Green supply chain practices mediate the relationship between blockchain governance readiness and environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.5 H5: Environmental awareness positively moderates the relationship between blockchain governance readiness and environmental performance, such that the relationship is stronger when environmental awareness is high.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Strategic Planning (SP) and Technology Adoption (TA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStrategic planning (SP) aligns organisational vision, resources and monitoring routines, thereby steering digital transformation toward desired outcomes (Bryson, 2018; Ibidunni et al., 2025). In emerging-economy contexts, SP is particularly salient because resource constraints and regulatory volatility heighten the value of deliberate goal setting, prioritisation and review (Ejigu, 2023). However, empirical studies associate SP with greater innovation adoption and improved firm performance, especially in environmentally sensitive industries where technology choices carry compliance and reputation implications (Alahdal et al., 2025; Tumpa et al., 2025). Within the TOE lens, SP shapes the organisational and environmental pillars by clarifying sustainability objectives, allocating budgets and skills, and establishing risk/compliance routines that make adoption feasible (Aina, 2025; Hsu et al., 2025). In agri-food supply chains, such as Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry sector, characterised by dispersed actors and traceability gaps, SP also guides the selection of green use-cases and supplier requirements that digital tools should support (Elkoraichi et al., 2025). Therefore, the literature suggests: organisations with stronger SP exhibit higher Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR). \u003cem\u003e(H1).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.2 Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR) and Environmental Performance (EP)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch highlights blockchain\u0026rsquo;s potential for environmental governance through immutable records, end-to-end traceability and timely reporting (Al Amin et al., 2025; Nadime et al., 2025). It supports traceability in supply chains, improves accountability, and enables real-time reporting for compliance with environmental regulations when governance is in place, blockchain data can support greener procurement, logistics and supplier compliance, thereby improving environmental outcomes (Adomako et al., 2025; Cheong, 2025). However, benefits depend on governance readiness, the presence of roles, policies and monitoring routines that steer adoption toward strategic and regulatory goals (Iyer et al., 2025; Liu et al., 2025). COBIT 2019, developed by ISACA, offers a structured protocol for aligning IT governance with strategic and environmental goals (ISACA, 2019). The literature also implies a process mechanism: governance capabilities enable green supply chain practices (GSCP), and these operational behaviours translate into higher environmental performance (EP). Moreover, environmental awareness (EA) is argued to amplify the salience of governance signals and the likelihood that managers act on them, strengthening the BGR\u0026ndash;EP link in high-awareness organisations. Accordingly, the review supports: BGR \u0026rarr; GSCP \u003cem\u003e(H2)\u003c/em\u003e, GSCP \u0026rarr; EP \u003cem\u003e(H3)\u003c/em\u003e, an indirect effect BGR \u0026rarr; GSCP \u0026rarr; EP \u003cem\u003e(H4)\u003c/em\u003e, and a positive moderation of EA on BGR \u0026rarr; EP \u003cem\u003e(H5).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.3 Green Supply Chain Practices (GSCP) as a Mediator\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGreen supply chain management (GSCP) refers to the incorporation of environmental concerns into procurement, production, distribution, and disposal processes (Hariyadi et al., 2025; Salisu et al., 2025). It is increasingly viewed as a mediator between digital transformation and sustainability performance (Junejo et al., 2025). Blockchain enhances GSCP by enabling transparency and verifying environmental claims (Maheshwari et al., 2025; L. W. Zhao et al., 2024). Studies by Aggarwal et al. (2024) and Danso et al. (2025) confirm that GSCP mediates the relationship between technology adoption and environmental outcomes, especially in sectors like agriculture and food processing (Aggarwal et al., 2024; Danso et al., 2025). Building on this literature and the context of Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry sector, we hypothesise: \u003cem\u003eH2\u003c/em\u003e: BGR positively influences GSCP. \u003cem\u003eH3\u003c/em\u003e: GSCP positively influences EP. \u003cem\u003eH4\u003c/em\u003e: GSCP mediates the relationship between BGR and EP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.4 Environmental Awareness (EA) as a Moderator\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental awareness reflects an organisation\u0026rsquo;s strategic orientation toward environmental responsibility (Bloodgood \u0026amp; Morrow, 2003; Camacho et al., 2025). It affects decision-making, policy enforcement, and the integration of sustainability into operations (Khan et al., 2025; Ren et al., 2025; S\u0026aacute;nchez-Garc\u0026iacute;a et al., 2025). Firms with high environmental awareness are more likely to prioritise environmental performance and adopt supportive technologies such as blockchain (Han \u0026amp; Gooi, 2025; Isiaku \u0026amp; Adalier, 2025; Yahaya, 2025). As a moderator, awareness strengthens the effect of governance readiness and planning on performance outcomes (Aasa et al., 2025; Alsanie, 2025; Iglesias-S\u0026aacute;nchez et al., 2025). Thus, consistent with the literature, we posit: H5. Environmental Awareness positively moderates the relationship between Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR) and Environmental Performance (EP), such that the BGR \u0026rarr; EP effect is stronger at higher levels of EA. (Note: EA is treated as a climate/priority construct, distinct from GSCP\u0026rsquo;s operational practices, so it moderates BGR \u0026rarr; EP rather than directly replacing or mediating through GSCP.)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.5 Environmental Performance (EP)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEnvironmental performance refers to a firm\u0026apos;s ability to manage emissions, waste, resource consumption, and compliance with environmental regulations (Costa \u0026amp; Opare, 2025; Siddiqi et al., 2025). It is often used as a measure of sustainability outcomes in corporate and industrial settings (Ahsan, 2025; Zheng et al., 2025). In the poultry industry, improving environmental performance is especially important due to its waste-intensive and resource-heavy nature (de Abreu Filho et al., 2025; Rodrigues et al., 2025). Metrics such as energy efficiency, waste minimisation, and pollution control are central to evaluating environmental impact (Bigiotti et al., 2025; Sathish et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.6 Theoretical Framework and Sectoral Context\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework supports a holistic understanding of innovation adoption (Hsu et al., 2025; Xu et al., 2025). It integrates technological factors (e.g., blockchain), organisational elements (e.g., strategic planning), and environmental influences (e.g., regulation, awareness) (Alnoor et al., 2025; Benchis et al., 2025; Dai, 2025; Putri et al., 2025; Teng et al., 2025). This study also contextualises the framework within Egypt\u0026apos;s poultry sector, which contributes significantly to the national economy and food security but faces mounting environmental pressures (Danese \u0026amp; Romano, 2025; G. Zhao et al., 2025). Issues such as unmanaged organic waste, high water and feed use, and limited traceability present opportunities for digital and strategic intervention (Satyro et al., 2024; Sultan, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, TOE structures the proposed relationships among the constructs as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTOE-based mapping of study variables and sectoral context (Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry supply chain) by the researchers.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTOE context\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFocus in agri-food governance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruct(s) in this model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTechnology\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCapability to evaluate, direct, and monitor blockchain in line with policies, risk controls, and data integrity\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBGR (COBIT-aligned governance readiness)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganization\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrategic intent and internal processes that prioritize sustainability and operationalize it in supply chains\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSP (strategic vision/review; tech-integrated planning) and GSCP (green procurement, logistics, supplier compliance)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEnvironment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRegulatory expectations, sectoral norms, and salience of environmental issues\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEA (environmental awareness as a contextual moderator)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutcome\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRealized sustainability performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEP (pollution/resource management; compliance/continuous improvement)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"6. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study adopts an exploratory, quantitative design to investigate the relationships between strategic planning, blockchain governance readiness (based on COBIT 2019), green supply chain practices, environmental awareness, and sustainable environmental performance in Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.1 Population and Sampling\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe target population includes managers, technical officers, and environmental professionals working in Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry supply chain, specifically in production, processing, logistics, and waste management. According to the latest data from Egypt\u0026rsquo;s Ministry of Agriculture and Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), the poultry industry comprises approximately 30,000 commercial farms and hundreds of medium to large integrated producers across various governorates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo ensure representativeness, a stratified random sampling technique was employed, stratifying by:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGeographic region (Upper Egypt, Lower Egypt, Delta)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFirm type (independent farms, integrated companies)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRole (managerial, operational, environmental)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 120 participants were selected proportionally from these random strata to reflect the diversity of operational and governance practices across Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry sector.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.2 Instrument and Data Collection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA structured questionnaire was developed, incorporating validated items from prior literature and adapted to the local context. The instrument used five-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and was divided into the following sections:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStrategic Planning (SP) has two dimensions, 6 items Q1-Q6. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlockchain Governance Readiness (BGR) has two dimensions, 6 items Q7\u0026ndash;Q10, Q26\u0026ndash;Q27; COBIT-aligned.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGreen Supply Chain Practices (GSCP) has two dimensions, 6 items Q11\u0026ndash;Q15, Q28.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnvironmental Awareness (EA) has two dimensions, 6 items Q16\u0026ndash;Q20, Q29.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnvironmental Performance (EP) has two dimensions, 6 items Q21\u0026ndash;Q25, Q30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was reviewed by academic experts and piloted with 10 professionals to ensure clarity. Data were collected in July - August 2025 via field visits and online distribution using Google Forms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.3 Data Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data were analysed using Python 3.11 in Google Colab, employing the following packages and techniques:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003epandas, numpy: Data cleaning, transformation, and descriptive statistics\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003epingouin, scipy.stats, statsmodels: Correlation, reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha), and regression analysis\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003esemopy: Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to test direct, mediating, and moderating effects\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ematplotlib, seaborn: Visualisation of model relationships and interaction effects\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecific analysis steps included:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReliability testing (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; \u0026ge; 0.80)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNormality assessment using the Shapiro-Wilk test\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMulticollinearity checks via VIF scores\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMediation analysis using bootstrapping (5,000 resamples)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eModeration analysis using interaction terms\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis rigorous quantitative approach enables a robust understanding of the conceptual relationships within the proposed model and offers empirical insights for future adoption of blockchain governance protocols in environmental sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"7. Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.1 Descriptive Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe final dataset included responses from 120 participants, representing diverse strata across firm types and regions. Most respondents held managerial or technical roles, with over 60% affiliated with integrated poultry firms. Descriptive statistics showed moderate to high levels of agreement on all key constructs, indicating general awareness and perceived relevance of strategic planning, blockchain governance readiness, and environmental performance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.2 Reliability and Validity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll scales demonstrated high internal consistency:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul class=\"decimal_type\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStrategic Planning (\u0026alpha; = 0.88)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlockchain Governance Readiness (\u0026alpha; = 0.91)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGreen Supply Chain Practices (\u0026alpha; = 0.85)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnvironmental Awareness (\u0026alpha; = 0.87)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnvironmental Performance (\u0026alpha; = 0.89)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExploratory factor analysis confirmed the convergent validity of each construct, with factor loadings \u0026gt;0.70 and AVEs \u0026gt;0.50.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.3 Hypothesis Testing and Model Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA Structural Equation Model (SEM) using the semopy package was fitted to test the hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH1: Strategic Planning \u0026rarr; Blockchain Governance Readiness\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupported (\u0026beta; = 0.62, p \u0026lt; 0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterpretation: Firms with clear strategic visions are more likely to plan for or consider adopting blockchain governance aligned with COBIT 2019.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH2: Blockchain Governance Readiness \u0026rarr; Green Supply Chain Practices\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupported (\u0026beta; = 0.59, p \u0026lt; 0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterpretation: Even at the readiness stage, blockchain frameworks influence sustainability-focused supply chain thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH3: Green Supply Chain Practices \u0026rarr; Environmental Performance\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupported (\u0026beta; = 0.53, p \u0026lt; 0.001)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH4 (Mediation): Blockchain Governance Readiness \u0026rarr; GSCP \u0026rarr; Environmental Performance\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePartial mediation confirmed by bootstrapping (95% CI does not include zero)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eH5 (Moderation): Environmental Awareness moderates BGR \u0026rarr; Environmental Performance\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSupported (interaction \u0026beta; = 0.34, p \u0026lt; 0.01)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"https://myfiles.space/user_files/58895_8739fc6c57c1c19a/58895_custom_files/img1773822213.png\" width=\"476\" height=\"669\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.4 Discussion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings affirm that strategic planning is a cornerstone of digital governance readiness, even before actual implementation. This aligns with Bryson (2018), who argued that strategic foresight enables more structured innovation pathways in emerging markets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe positive association between blockchain governance readiness and green practices suggests that the poultry sector is open to integrating sustainability-oriented technologies, especially when framed under structured protocols like COBIT 2019.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eImportantly, the mediation role of green supply chain practices highlights that blockchain cannot directly influence environmental outcomes unless operationalised through eco-responsible practices. This echoes the work of Alahdal et al. (2025) and Tumpa et al. (2025), who emphasised GSCP as a transmission mechanism for sustainability outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLastly, the moderating role of environmental awareness confirms that a culture of sustainability enhances the effect of governance readiness on performance. High-awareness firms showed a stronger intent to pursue future blockchain adoption for environmental gain, even without current deployment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eObjective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResearch Question\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHypothesis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKey Result (SEM)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerdict\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eO1. Examine the effect of Strategic Planning (SP) on Blockchain Governance Readiness (BGR).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRQ1. Does SP positively influence BGR?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH1: SP \u0026rarr; BGR (+)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta; = 0.62, p \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eO2. Examine the effect of BGR on GSCP.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRQ2. Does BGR positively influence GSCP?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH2: BGR \u0026rarr; GSCP (+)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta; = 0.59, p \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eO3. Examine the effect of GSCP on EP.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRQ3. Do GSCP improve EP?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH3: GSCP \u0026rarr; EP (+)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026beta; = 0.53, p \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eO4. Test whether GSCP mediates the BGR \u0026rarr; EP link.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRQ4. Do GSCP carry the effect of BGR onto EP?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH4: BGR \u0026rarr; GSCP \u0026rarr; EP (indirect \u0026gt; 0)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBootstrap (5,000): indirect sig. (95% CI \u0026ne; 0); partial mediation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported (partial)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eO5. Test whether Environmental Awareness (EA) moderates the BGR \u0026rarr; EP link.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRQ5. Is the BGR \u0026rarr; EP effect stronger at higher EA?\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eH5: BGR \u0026times; EA \u0026rarr; EP (+)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInteraction \u0026beta; = 0.34, p \u0026lt; .01; stronger slope at high EA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSupported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"8. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis exploratory study offers a conceptual and empirical examination of how strategic planning and blockchain governance readiness, guided by the COBIT 2019 framework, can support sustainable environmental performance in Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry sector. While blockchain technology has not yet been widely implemented in this industry, the results underscore the importance of organisational preparedness and governance structures in shaping environmental outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings confirm that:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStrategic planning is a critical driver of blockchain governance readiness.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBlockchain governance readiness enhances green supply chain practices, which in turn improve environmental performance.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEnvironmental awareness amplifies the effectiveness of governance readiness in promoting sustainability.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese insights suggest that even in the absence of widespread technology adoption, organisations can take proactive steps to build readiness through planning, awareness, and adoption of governance frameworks such as COBIT 2019. By doing so, they position themselves to better respond to future environmental regulations, consumer expectations, and sustainability standards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study provides a COBIT-based model that can be adapted for use across other agri-food sectors in Egypt and similar emerging markets. It also sets the foundation for future research and policy discussions around the digital transformation of environmental governance in developing economies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eParticipant consent statement: This study received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Environmental Studies \u0026amp; Research Institute (ESRI), University of Sadat City, Egypt, under ethical approval number REC/ESRI/USC/7/15-03-2025. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements:\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe authors acknowledge the support of the Environmental Studies and Research Institute (ESRI), University of Sadat City, and the participants from the poultry sector for their valuable insights.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAasa, O. P., Jesuleye, O. A., \u0026amp; Adepoju, A. O. (2025). Moderating role of environmental awareness on the relationship between greening practices and environmental performance of Nigerian public university. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environment and Waste Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(1), 22\u0026ndash;44. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2025.146387;REQUESTEDJOURNAL:JOURNAL:IJEWM;ISSUE:ISSUE:10.1504/IJEWM.2025.37.ISSUE-1;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAdomako, R. B., Boakye, P. B., \u0026amp; Salapki, A. (2025). Tech-driven governance for sustainability: enhancing environmental disclosure through corporate governance and innovation in emerging market. \u003cem\u003eSN Business and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1\u0026ndash;34. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43546-025-00852-5/TABLES/8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAggarwal, M., Rani, P., Rani, P., \u0026amp; Sharma, P. (2024). Revolutionizing agri-food supply chain management with blockchain-based traceability and navigation integration. \u003cem\u003eCluster Computing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(9), 12919\u0026ndash;12942. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10586-024-04609-X/TABLES/6\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAhmed, A. M. H. A., Elemam, W. E., \u0026amp; Abuosekken, M. S. (2023). The Role of Strategic Planning in Environmental Crisis Management Article Review and Case Study. \u003cem\u003eEgypt International Journal of Environmental Studies and Researches\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(4), 85\u0026ndash;104. https://doi.org/10.21608/ijesr.2023.346718\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAhsan, M. J. (2025). Green leadership and innovation: catalysts for environmental performance in Italian manufacturing. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Organizational Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1646\u0026ndash;1669. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-04-2024-4450\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAina, A. T. (2025). Effect of Technology Organization Environment Framework in Business Strategy on Decision Making of Small and Medium Enterprises in Lagos, Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eFUDMA Journal of \u0026nbsp;Accounting and Finance Research [FUJAFR]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.33003/FUJAFR-2025.V3I2.157.1-15\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAl Amin, M., Baldacci, R., \u0026amp; Kerbache, L. (2025). Blockchain-based green supply chain management framework for sustainable practices in Bangladeshi RMG industries. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;12. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-025-01196-8/TABLES/1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlahdal, W. M., Pandey, D. K., Sahu, M., Nguyen, T., \u0026amp; Hashim, H. A. (2025). Environmental, social and governance and earnings management research: current trends and future research. \u003cem\u003eAccounting Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARJ-05-2024-0174\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAljebrini, A., Dogruyol, K., \u0026amp; Ahmaro, I. Y. Y. (2025). How Strategic Planning Enhances ESG: Evidence from Mission Statements. \u003cem\u003eSustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 595\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 595. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17020595\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlnoor, A., Abbas, S., Sadaa, A. M., Chew, X. Y., \u0026amp; Bayram, G. E. (2025). Navigating the power of blockchain strategy: Analysis of technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework and innovation resistance theory using PLS-SEM and ANN insights. \u003cem\u003eTechnological Forecasting and Social Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e214\u003c/em\u003e, 124044. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2025.124044\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlsanie, G. (2025). Investigating the Impact of Digitalization on Resource Use, Energy Use, and Waste Reduction Towards Sustainability: Considering Environmental Awareness as a Moderator. \u003cem\u003eSustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 4073\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(9), 4073. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17094073\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAmore, E., Dilger, T., Ploder, C., Bernsteiner, R., \u0026amp; Mezzenzana, M. (2023). Leverage the COBIT 2019 Design Toolkit in an SME Context: A Multiple Case Study. \u003cem\u003eKnE Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 73-101\u0026ndash;173\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.18502/KSS.V8I1.12636\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAriffin, K. A. Z., \u0026amp; Ahmad, F. H. (2021). Indicators for maturity and readiness for digital forensic investigation in era of industrial revolution 4.0. \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Security\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e105\u003c/em\u003e, 102237. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSE.2021.102237\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBenchis, M. P., Shahzad, K., \u0026amp; Dan, S. (2025). Comparative analysis of blockchain adoption in the public and private sectors. A technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Innovation \u0026amp; Knowledge\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 100746. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JIK.2025.100746\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBigiotti, S., Costantino, C., Patriarca, A., Mancini, G., Provolo, G., Recanatesi, F., Ripa, M. N., \u0026amp; Marucci, A. (2025). Energy Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability in Rural Buildings: A Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Integration in Poultry Tunnels\u0026mdash;A Case Study in Central Italy. \u003cem\u003eApplied Sciences 2025, Vol. 15, Page 5094\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(9), 5094. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP15095094\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBloodgood, J. M., \u0026amp; Morrow, J. L. (2003). Strategic Organizational Change: Exploring the Roles of Environmental Structure, Internal Conscious Awareness and Knowledge*. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(7), 1761\u0026ndash;1782. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00399\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBryson, J. (2018). \u003cem\u003eStrategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement\u003c/em\u003e. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en\u0026amp;lr=\u0026amp;id=xqVFDwAAQBAJ\u0026amp;oi=fnd\u0026amp;pg=PR14\u0026amp;dq=Bryson,+J.+M.+(2018).+Strategic+planning+for+public+and+nonprofit+organisations:+A+guide+to+strengthening+and+sustaining+organisational+achievement.+John+Wiley+%26+Sons.\u0026amp;ots=VtcnQIiemn\u0026amp;sig=dpCTbrafSCwPuPVQOcW45hmA8LI\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCamacho, L. J., Banks, M., Sookhai, S., \u0026amp; Concepci\u0026oacute;n, E. (2025). Redimensioning the Theory of Planned Behavior on Workplace Energy Saving Intention: The Mediating Role of Environmental Knowledge and Organizational Culture. \u003cem\u003eSustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 3574\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(8), 3574. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17083574\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCheong, B. C. (2025). Leveraging blockchain for enhanced transparency and traceability in sustainable supply chains. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Analytics 2025 3:1\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.1007/S44257-025-00032-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCosta, M. D., \u0026amp; Opare, S. (2025). Impact of Corporate Culture on Environmental Performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e196\u003c/em\u003e(1), 61\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-024-05674-3/TABLES/10\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDai, X. (2025). \u003cem\u003eTOE Framework-Based Digital Strategy Analysis for New Energy Vehicle Enterprises\u003c/em\u003e. 545\u0026ndash;558. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-734-2_61\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDanese, P., \u0026amp; Romano, P. (2025). Blockchain Systems in Food Supply Chains: An Interpretation Through the Lens of Agency and Technology\u0026ndash;Organization\u0026ndash;Environment Theories. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Logistics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(3), e70019. https://doi.org/10.1111/JBL.70019\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDanso, S. A., Meng, Q., Li, Z., Amoako, T., \u0026amp; Quansah, C. E. (2025). Investigating the Impacts of Green Procurement on Supply Chain Resilience Through Supply Chain Collaboration: The Moderating Role of Human Resource Practices. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Knowledge Economy\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;34. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13132-024-02308-X/METRICS\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ede Abreu Filho, H. R., Rufino, J. P. F., da Silva Gomes, M. F., Paix\u0026atilde;o, R. M., Carvalho, J. R., de Abreu, J. F. S., \u0026amp; de Oliveira, A. T. (2025). Environmental, technological, and animal welfare challenges in Latin American poultry production: a systematic review of sustainability and efficiency. \u003cem\u003eWorld\u0026rsquo;s Poultry Science Journal\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2025.2534629;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEgypt \u0026nbsp;Vision 2030. (2024). \u003cem\u003eEnvironment Pillar - Egypt 2030\u003c/em\u003e. Egypt Vision 2030. http://sdsegypt2030.com/environmental-dimension/environment-axis/?lang=en\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEgypt Vision 2030. (2023). Egypt,s Updated Vision 2030. In \u003cem\u003eMinistry of Planning \u0026nbsp;and Economic Development\u003c/em\u003e. moz-extension://4f6c7b1d-f0a4-4ccc-beed-abcb08bcd4bf/enhanced-reader.html?openApp\u0026amp;pdf=https%3A%2F%2Fmped.gov.eg%2FFiles%2FEgypt_Vision_2030_EnglishDigitalUse.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEjigu, M. E. (2023). Does Strategic Planning \u0026amp; Planning Resources Influence the Performance of Financial Institutions? Roles of Managerial Involvement and Institutional Capability. \u003cem\u003eGlobal Business Review\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509231169358/ASSET/5D0E7CEE-5469-4795-ABD3-AD5DCA92DA56/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_09721509231169358-FIG1.JPG\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eElkoraichi, Y., Elfezazi, S., \u0026amp; Belhadi, A. (2025). Analysis of barriers to blockchain technology adoption in the African agri-food supply chain. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-025-01125-9/METRICS\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHan, X., \u0026amp; Gooi, L. M. (2025). Multi-Level Determinants of Sustainable Blockchain Technology Adoption in SCM: Individual, Organisational, and Societal Perspectives. \u003cem\u003eSustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 2621\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2621. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17062621\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHariyadi, E., Wong, W. K., \u0026amp; Negash, Y. T. (2025). Sustainable supply chain collaboration in construction and demolition waste management: green innovation for sustainability performance. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Material Cycles and Waste Management\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10163-025-02291-8/TABLES/1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHsu, S., Gligor, D., Garg, V., G\u0026ouml;lgeci, I., \u0026amp; Choi, R.-J. (2025). Exploring supply chain capabilities as drivers for willingness to adopt blockchain technology using a technology\u0026ndash;organization\u0026ndash;environment (TOE) framework. \u003cem\u003eProduction Planning \u0026amp; Control\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2025.2533186\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIbidunni, A. S., Oyewo, O. O., Nwokedike, F., \u0026amp; Ibidunni, O. M. (2025). Accomplishing SMEs\u0026rsquo; performance through firm resilience and strategic planning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the International Council for Small Business\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/26437015.2025.2522268;JOURNAL:JOURNAL:UCSB20;SUBPAGE:STRING:ACCESS\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIglesias-S\u0026aacute;nchez, P., Jambrino-Maldonado, C., Zhang, J., Shao, X., \u0026amp; Sun, T. (2025). How Does Environmental Sustainability Commitment Affect Corporate Environmental Performance: A Chain Mediation Model. \u003cem\u003eSustainability 2025, Vol. 17, Page 3461\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(8), 3461. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU17083461\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eISACA. (2019). \u003cem\u003eCOBIT 2019 Framework Governance and Management Objectives\u003c/em\u003e. www.isaca.org/COBITuse.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIsiaku, L., \u0026amp; Adalier, A. (2025). Analyzing the barriers to blockchain adoption in educational sectors: a comprehensive literature review using the Technology-Organizational-Environment (TOE) framework. \u003cem\u003eOn the Horizon: The International Journal of Learning Futures\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e33\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32\u0026ndash;60. https://doi.org/10.1108/OTH-05-2024-0029\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIyer, R., Maralapalle, V., \u0026amp; Mahesh, P. (2025). \u003cem\u003eDevelopments of Corporate Governance Regulations\u003c/em\u003e. 489\u0026ndash;506. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-6366-8_24\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJunejo, I., Sohu, J. M., Alwadi, B. M., Ejaz, F., Nasir, A., \u0026amp; Hossain, M. B. (2025). Green supply chain management and SMEs sustainable performance in developing country: role of green knowledge sharing, green innovation and big data-driven supply chain. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43621-025-01055-6/METRICS\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKhan, F., Abbass, K., Qun, W., \u0026amp; Grebinevych, O. (2025). Moderating role of digital media on environmental awareness and environmental beliefs to shape farmers\u0026rsquo; behavioral intentions towards sustainable agricultural land conservation practices. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e373\u003c/em\u003e, 123745. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2024.123745\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLavaei Adaryani, R., Palouj, M., Karbasioun, M., Asadi, A., Gholami, H., Kianirad, A., \u0026amp; Joodi Damirchi, M. (2024). Antecedents of blockchain adoption in the poultry supply chain: An extended UTAUT model. \u003cem\u003eTechnological Forecasting and Social Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e202\u003c/em\u003e, 123309. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2024.123309\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLi, J., Han, D., Weng, T. H., Wu, H., Li, K. C., \u0026amp; Castiglione, A. (2025). A secure data storage and sharing scheme for port supply chain based on blockchain and dynamic searchable encryption. \u003cem\u003eComputer Standards \u0026amp; Interfaces\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e, 103887. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CSI.2024.103887\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLiu, X., Dong, F. H., Shui, W., \u0026amp; Geng, G. (2025). Blockchain in digital cultural heritage resources: technological integration, consensus mechanisms, and future directions. \u003cem\u003eNpj Heritage Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.1038/S40494-025-01818-4;KWRD=MATERIALS+SCIENCE\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMaheshwari, S., Jaggi, C. K., \u0026amp; Gautam, P. (2025). A state-of-the-art review of green supply chain management: observations and business insights. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Operations Research 2025\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10479-025-06619-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNadime, K. L., Benhra, J., Benabbou, R., \u0026amp; Mouatassim, S. (2025). The Impact of Emerging Blockchain Trends on Supply Chain Management. \u003cem\u003eOperations Research Forum\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;35. https://doi.org/10.1007/S43069-025-00418-Z/METRICS\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNikbakht, M., Rouhani, S., \u0026amp; Mojtahed, V. (2025). A novel ranking model for information technology security controls through COBIT and MCDM. \u003cem\u003eRecords Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/RMJ-03-2024-0007/1255795/A-NOVEL-RANKING-MODEL-FOR-INFORMATION-TECHNOLOGY\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePutri, E., Bandi, B., Widarjo, W., \u0026amp; Arifin, T. (2025). The value of cloud accounting for MSMEs: a Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework perspective. \u003cem\u003eCogent Business \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2494712\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eQadri, H. M. ud D., Ali, H., \u0026amp; Mustafa, A. U. (2025). Relationship between environmental performance indices and blockchain-based sustainability-focused companies: Evidence from countries in Europe and America. \u003cem\u003eRegional Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 100214. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.REGSUS.2025.100214\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRen, Z., Shan, Y., Jian, Z., \u0026amp; Zhu, D. (2025). Evaluating the forward-looking perspectives of environmental policy enforcement and institutional framework in the pursuit of a circular economy: A moments-quantile approach. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e382\u003c/em\u003e, 125442. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2025.125442\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRodrigues, V. D. V., Wander, A. E., \u0026amp; Rosa, F. S. da. (2025). Poultry Eco-Controls: Performance and Accounting. \u003cem\u003eAgriculture 2025, Vol. 15, Page 1311\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1311. https://doi.org/10.3390/AGRICULTURE15121311\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSalisu, M. A., Bamiro, N. B., Elegbede, I. O., \u0026amp; Rus, R. C. (2025). Farm-to-Fork Framework Supply Chain for Integration of Green Economy for Halal Industry Sustainability. \u003cem\u003eGreen and Blue Economy Frameworks for Halal Industry Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-1729-6_1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez-Garc\u0026iacute;a, E., Mart\u0026iacute;nez-Falc\u0026oacute;, J., Marco-Lajara, B., \u0026amp; Zakimova, A. (2025). Achieving environmentally responsible production through green managerial awareness, human resource management and employee behavior. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e373\u003c/em\u003e, 123739. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2024.123739\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSathish, T., Saravanan, R., Saidani, T., Faisal, R. S., Hourani, A. O., Shangdiar, S., \u0026amp; Amesho, K. T. T. (2025). Low-emission nano-fuels from chicken fat waste: Performance and environmental impact assessment in CI engines. \u003cem\u003eResults in Engineering\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e, 105191. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RINENG.2025.105191\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSatyro, W. C., Contador, J. C., Gomes, J. A., Monken, S. F. de P., Barbosa, A. P., Bizarrias, F. S., Contador, J. L., Silva, L. S., \u0026amp; Prado, R. G. (2024). Technology-Organization-External-Sustainability (TOES) Framework for Technology Adoption: Critical Analysis of Models for Industry 4.0 Implementation Projects. \u003cem\u003eSustainability 2024, Vol. 16, Page 11064\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(24), 11064. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU162411064\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchwegler, Y. O., \u0026amp; Petty, J. S. (2025). How environmental awareness and concern affect environmental entrepreneurial intent. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Venturing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(2), 106470. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSVENT.2024.106470\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSiddiqi, R. A., Codini, A. P., Ishaq, M. I., Jamali, D. R., \u0026amp; Raza, A. (2025). Sustainable supply chain, dynamic capabilities, eco-innovation, and environmental performance in an emerging economy. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Strategy and the Environment\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e34\u003c/em\u003e(1), 338\u0026ndash;350. https://doi.org/10.1002/BSE.3976;PAGE:STRING:ARTICLE/CHAPTER\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSultan, A. A. (2025). Blockchain technology adoption in food supply chains: key factors, impacts and challenges. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Organizational Analysis\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2024-4790/1259153/BLOCKCHAIN-TECHNOLOGY-ADOPTION-IN-FOOD-SUPPLY\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTeng, Y., Shang, K. C., Wang, H. C., Kuo, S. Y., \u0026amp; Lu, C. S. (2025). The implementation of blockchain adoption in China\u0026rsquo;s manufacturing industry: the technology organization environment (TOE) method. \u003cem\u003eHumanities and Social Sciences Communications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.1057/S41599-025-04570-Z;SUBJMETA=4000,4001,4014;KWRD=BUSINESS+AND+MANAGEMENT\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTumpa, R. J., Naeni, L. M., Afzal, F., \u0026amp; Ghanbaripour, A. N. (2025). Leveraging digital technology to improve environmental, social, and governance performance of infrastructure projects. \u003cem\u003eManagement Decision\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e63\u003c/em\u003e(13), 455\u0026ndash;496. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2024-0818\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eVandersmissen, L., \u0026amp; George, B. (2023). Strategic planning in public organizations: reviewing 35 years of research. \u003cem\u003eInternational Public Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2023.2271901\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWang, J., Yang, Y., Liu, Y., \u0026amp; Shi, W. (n.d.). Managing cities: environmental regulation, technological innovation and ecological efficiency. \u003cem\u003eManagement Decision\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;38. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2024-2544\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eXu, D., Huang, B., Shi, S., \u0026amp; Zhang, X. (2025). A Configurational Analysis of Green Development in Forestry Enterprises Based on the Technology\u0026ndash;Organization\u0026ndash;Environment (TOE) Framework. \u003cem\u003eForests 2025, Vol. 16, Page 744\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(5), 744. https://doi.org/10.3390/F16050744\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYahaya, P. D. O. A. (2025). BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE. \u003cem\u003eSSRN Electronic Journal\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.5130253\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhao, G., Chen, X., Hu, J., \u0026amp; Sutrisno, A. (2025). A Technology-Organization-Environment Decision Framework for Understanding Emerging Technology Adoption on Farms: An Empirical Investigation from China. \u003cem\u003eLecture Notes in Business Information Processing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e546 LNBIP\u003c/em\u003e, 3\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-90863-7_1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZhao, L. W., Jin, S., \u0026amp; Gao, P. (2024). Dynamics analysis of green supply chain under the conditions of demand uncertainty and blockchain technology. \u003cem\u003eScientific Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;19. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41598-024-76616-2/FIGURES/10\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZheng, Y., Wu, Y., Zhang, Y., Meng, X., \u0026amp; Zhang, P. (2025). Greening the future: How green manufacturing shapes corporate environmental and ESG success. \u003cem\u003eInternational Review of Financial Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e, 103994. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IRFA.2025.103994\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Sadat City","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Blockchain Governance, COBIT 2019, Environmental Awareness, Environmental Performance, Green Supply Chain, Poultry Sector, Strategic Planning","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9127112/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9127112/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates the readiness for blockchain governance and its potential influence on sustainable environmental performance within Egypt\u0026rsquo;s poultry supply chain. While blockchain adoption remains absent in the sector, its perceived potential in improving traceability, transparency, and sustainability in agri-food systems is increasingly recognised. The study proposes a COBIT 2019-based governance model that integrates strategic planning and blockchain frameworks to enhance green supply chain practices and environmental performance. Environmental awareness is considered a moderating factor, and green supply chain practices serve as a mediator between blockchain governance readiness and environmental outcomes. The conceptual model is grounded in the Technology-Organization-Environment (TOE) framework and validated using perception-based data from poultry professionals across Egypt. Findings suggest that firms with strategic planning capabilities and governance readiness are better positioned to adopt blockchain for environmental goals. The study provides practical insights for aligning digital transformation and environmental sustainability in Egypt\u0026rsquo;s agricultural sector.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Strategic Planning and Blockchain Governance Readiness for Sustainable Environmental Performance: An Exploratory COBIT-Based Study of Egypt’s Poultry Sector","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-18 08:30:38","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9127112/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8ae96aa2-76fb-4b5b-b849-1eb7928e0c9b","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":64520847,"name":"Environmental Economics"},{"id":64520848,"name":"Agricultural Economics \u0026 Policy"},{"id":64520849,"name":"Management"},{"id":64520850,"name":"Information Retrieval and Management"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-18T08:30:38+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-18 08:30:38","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9127112","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9127112","identity":"rs-9127112","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}