## 5 Blockchain-Based Supply Chain Security Solutions and Integration Models
### Data Privacy with Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) and Confidential Transactions
#### 5.3.2 Architectural Model for Cross-Chain Supply Chains and Smart Contract Design
The evaluation is based on metrics such as resource consumption and processing capacity, which are inherently tied to the architectural components and infrastructure requirements of the system. Specifically, factors such as the number of virtual machines (VMs) deployed on cloud-based infrastructures, energy consumption, transaction throughput (TPS), data storage strategy, and integration complexity have a direct impact on the total cost of ownership [84; 85; 108; 183]. For instance, PoW-based systems are generally unsustainable for large-scale enterprise SCM applications due to their high energy consumption (\(\sim\)800 kWh/tx) and low TPS (\(\sim\)7) [82; 83; 83; 184]. In contrast, PBFT-based frameworks,

Figure 9: Impact of emerging technologies on security, traceability, and data integrity in blockchain-enabled supply chains. such as Hyperledger Fabric, offer significantly lower energy consumption (\(\sim\)0.0001 kWh/tx) and higher transaction capacity (1000+ TPS), while requiring a predictable VM infrastructure (3-4 VMs) and offering greater integration flexibility [84; 85; 183]. Furthermore, their compatibility with off-chain data storage strategies can reduce costs in data-intensive applications [108; 137]. Regarding PoS-based systems like Ethereum 2.0, recent studies estimate that the energy consumption per transaction has dropped to \(\sim\)0.0087 kWh/tx after the shift from PoW to PoS, assuming an average throughput of 30 tx/s [185]. This efficiency gain enhances their viability in sustainability-sensitive supply chain applications. In addition, long-term sustainability of the system requires ongoing maintenance, updates, and training efforts. Factors such as platform integration, user onboarding, and security policy enforcement also contribute significantly to initial implementation costs [81; 108]. This comparative analysis aims to assess the operational cost implications of blockchain infrastructure in the context of supply chain systems from a technical perspective. ### Future Research Directions

This review highlights several key research gaps in the current literature that require further exploration:

* Lightweight and scalable blockchain architectures tailored to supply chain scenarios. * Legally compliant and adaptable smart contract models. * Trust-building mechanisms in multi-stakeholder decision-making environments. * The integration of AI and blockchain for predictive analytics and decision support. * Real-time data integration through edge computing. * System architectures capable of maintaining data integrity under IoE-driven data diversity. * Quantum-resistant cryptographic techniques adapted to the security demands of SCM. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt}} \hline \hline
**Consensus Mechanism** & **Energy Consumption (kWh/tx)** & **TPS Consumption (Throughput)** & **SCM Suitability** & **Trade-Offs** & **References** \\ \hline PoW (Bitcoin) & High (\(\sim\)800) & \(\sim\)7 & Low & Extremely secure, but unsustainable and slow. Energy-efficient, evolving TPS, some centralization. High throughput, permissioned, scalable, but limited & [80; 82; 83; 108; 184; 85] \\ PoS (Ethereum 2.0) & Low (\(\sim\)0.0087 for 30 tx) & \(\sim\)15–210 & Moderate to High & Energy-efficient, evolving TPS, some centralization. High throughput, permissioned, scalable, but limited & [81; 82; 108; 137; 85] \\ PBFT (Hyperledger) & Very Low (\(\sim\)0.0001) & \(\sim\)1000–2500 & High & High throughput, permissioned, scalable, but limited & [81; 84; 85] \\  & & & & & decentralization. Efficient for enterprise, but centralized trust model. & [85; 108; 137] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 17: Comparative analysis of consensus mechanisms in terms of energy efficiency, scalability, and applicability to supply chain management.