Product adoption · Abstract-supported quantitative empirical study

An empirical investigation of traceability technology adoption: a case of perishable products supply chain

Benchmarking: An International Journal · 2026

S. Kumar, B. Ramtiyal, G. Soni, L. Vijayvargy, C. Chandra, I. Dey

Summary

Optimism and innovativeness did not affect perceived ease of use or utility; behavioral intention was shaped by perceived utility, attitude and perceived behavioral control. For a founder, use this as a question to test in your own context, not a universal playbook.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Treat this as evidence for the specific customer behavior and adoption question studied. Compare the setting and sample to your company before changing a growth decision; use a local experiment where the paper does not match your context.

Reported result

What the study found

Optimism and innovativeness did not affect perceived ease of use or utility; behavioral intention was shaped by perceived utility, attitude and perceived behavioral control.

Research question

What the authors investigated

Which technology-readiness, TAM and planned-behavior factors shape traceability adoption in perishable-product supply chains?

Design

Integrated model combining TAM, Technology Readiness Index and Theory of Planned Behavior; online survey and model testing.

Sample and setting

Perishable-products supply-chain participants; accessible abstract reports an online survey but not the sample size.

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Publisher abstract does not report sample size or detailed limitations; case/sector context and cross-sectional survey require cautious generalization.

Research sources

Publisher DOI record and accessible article/abstract directly support the bibliographic record and the summary fields; editorial review remains appropriate for duplicate checking against the unseen 300-study library. Correction notices were not separately verified in this collection; consult the current publisher record before applying the findings.

Study strength

2.5/5 Exploratory evidence; interpret cautiously

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design · 1/2

Synthesis or analytical design addresses the question, but conclusions depend on included literature or model assumptions.

Sample · 0.4/1

The accessible source does not report a usable sample size.

Comparison · 0.8/1

The source reports a comparison; check the original methods for its construction.

Can we check it? · 0.5/1

Only publisher abstract/metadata was retrieved; full methods and robustness could not be checked.

Double-blind? Blinding was not established from the captured source; it may not apply to this study design.

Read the paper