Crisis-driven decision-making in traditional European SMEs: blockchain and adaptive governance in the Tuscan nautical sector

Abstract

This study investigates how decision-making logics develop within the institutional governance structures that influence crisis responses in traditional European small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) ecosystems and under which conditions digital tools – specifically blockchain – emerge as context-dependent governance solutions. It focuses on the Tuscan artisanal nautical ecosystem, a low-digital-maturity, institutionally dense environment. The study uses an exploratory qualitative research design based on documentary analysis and a process-driven analytical approach. The empirical dataset consists of 23 institutionally validated documents issued by industry associations, regulatory bodies, public authorities and port operators between 2020 and 2024. These documents are regarded as institutional narratives rather than sources of codified firm-level indicators. Uncertainty configurations are reconstructed using established typologies (Thompson, 1967; Milliken, 1987), while decision-making styles are classified retrospectively using the Vroom–Yetton framework as a descriptive tool (Vroom and Yetton, 1973). A structured analytical approach integrates these dimensions, focussing on how blockchain-based or blockchain-related solutions are discussed as potential governance responses (Davidson et al., 2018). Decision-making logics evolve dynamically in response to dominant uncertainty configurations rather than following a linear or purely chronological crisis timeline. Environmental uncertainty during the acute phase (2020) is associated with centralised, autocratic decisions; stakeholder-related uncertainty during the transition phase (2021) coincides with more participative governance arrangements; techno-institutional uncertainty during the recovery phase (2022–2023) gives rise to consultative decision-making and selective blockchain experimentation. Blockchain emerges not as a universal innovation but as a conditional institutional workaround, activated only where existing governance mechanisms prove inadequate in addressing verification failures and certification bottlenecks. The study relies exclusively on institutional documents and does not capture informal practices, firm-level negotiations or tacit knowledge within organisations. While this approach is appropriate for analysing how governance and decision-making are formally articulated and legitimised, it does not provide insight into unwritten practices or resistance to formal procedures. Future research employing firm interviews or ethnographic methods could complement these findings. Additionally, the focus on a single sector (nautical) and geographic area (Tuscany) enables deep analysis of a particular ecosystem but limits the generalisability of the findings. The transferability of insights to other traditional sectors or regions would require additional research. For SME managers operating in traditional and low-digital-maturity contexts, the findings underscore the importance of aligning decision-making styles with prevailing uncertainty rather than adhering to fixed leadership models. Centralised decision-making may be effective for rapid crisis containment, but prolonged use can undermine legitimacy and coordination during recovery. The study also suggests that digital tools such as blockchain should be approached pragmatically. Rather than pursuing technology adoption as a signal of innovation or modernisation, managers should assess whether specific institutional gaps – such as verification bottlenecks, trust deficits or certification delays – justify the associated organisational and coordination costs. In this regard, participative and consultative governance structures appear to be a precondition for successful digital experimentation, particularly when multiple stakeholders are involved. For sectoral organisations and consortia, the findings highlight the value of creating forums for inter-firm and cross-institutional coordination during crisis periods. The capacity to activate joint committees, working groups and technical consultations emerges as a key factor in both crisis response and in enabling longer-term adaptation and technological experimentation. For policymakers and industry associations, the findings demonstrate that many technological “solutions” arise from institutional weaknesses rather than from firm-level inefficiencies. Strengthening certification processes, improving regulatory coordination and supporting shared digital infrastructures may reduce the need for ad hoc technological fixes and enhance overall system resilience. The study also suggests that crisis response policies should be sensitive to shifting configurations of uncertainty. During acute phases, emergency powers and centralised decision-making may be appropriate; however, as uncertainty shifts towards coordination and institutional frictions, policies should explicitly support participative governance mechanisms and create institutional space for multi-stakeholder negotiation. Furthermore, if blockchain or other digital tools are to be meaningfully deployed in traditional SME sectors, policy support should focus on enabling the institutional conditions for their adoption – legitimate coordination bodies, regulatory alignment and collective decision-making infrastructure – rather than simply providing technological resources. The study advances SME governance research by showing, through analytically reconstructed configurations, how decision-making styles and digital tools co-evolve within the same organisational and institutional contexts as uncertainty configurations change over time. It enhances debates on adaptive governance and blockchain by viewing blockchain not as a strategic goal but as a context-dependent governance tool embedded in multi-actor crisis responses (Ansell and Torfing, 2021).