Mandatory Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) disclosure requirements—anchored in Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), and Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)—have placed unprecedented demands on supply chain data quality and auditability. Blockchain technology, combining immutability, decentralised governance, and smart contract automation, has emerged as a candidate infrastructure for addressing verification deficits across multi-tier supply chains. To our knowledge, no prior systematic review has simultaneously examined the blockchain specifically for formal ESG transparency and sustainability reporting across all three ESG dimensions within the post-CSRD mandatory reporting landscape. This study presents a systematic literature review (PRISMA 2020). Scopus and Web of Science searches identified 1,166 records (2016–2026); after deduplication, 761 unique records were screened, and after blinded screening (κ = 0.84), 96 studies were included. Five blockchain application typologies are identified (T1–T5), spanning provenance tracing, smart contract compliance, carbon accounting, supplier data aggregation, and ESG disclosure systems. A structural asymmetry is identified: governance is addressed in 96% of studies (77.1% under the strictest G-CONFIRMED recoding; 95.8% under the moderate interpretation, including borderline cases), the environmental pillar in 49%, and the social dimension in 21%, explained through institutional theory, with significant implications for CSRD and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Key barriers include scalability, interoperability, and the blockchain–GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) tension. Three principal contributions are made: (i) a systematic typology of blockchain for ESG transparency; (ii) institutional-theory explanation of ESG dimension asymmetry; and (iii) a research agenda centred on AI–blockchain convergence and post-CSRD empirical studies. The review is limited to English-language peer-reviewed literature.
Zaczyk et al. (Wed,) studied this question.