Next Article in Journal
Testing the Level of Creativity and Spatial Imagination in the SketchUp Program Using a Modified Urban Test of Creative Thinking
Previous Article in Journal
Methodological Quality of User-Centered Usability Evaluation of Digital Applications to Promote Citizens’ Engagement and Participation in Public Governance: A Systematic Literature Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets

by
Vasiliki Basdekidou
* and
Harry Papapanagos
Department of Balkan, Slavic & Oriental Studies, University of Macedonia, Egnatia Str. 156, 546 36 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Digital 2024, 4(3), 762-803; https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039
Submission received: 15 July 2024 / Revised: 2 August 2024 / Accepted: 1 September 2024 / Published: 10 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Transformation and Digital Capability)

Abstract

:
Blockchain technology (BCT) is regarded as one of the most important and disruptive technologies in Industry 4.0. However, no comprehensive study addresses the contributions of BCT adoption (BCA) on some special business functionalities projected as financial variables like BCA integrity, transparency, etc. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to close this theoretical gap and determine how BCA has contributed to the four business sectors that were selected since FinTech had the greatest potential in these domains. The PRISMA approach, a systematic literature review model, was used in this work to make sure that the greatest number of studies on the topic were accessed. The PRISMA model’s output helped identify relevant publications, and an analysis of these studies served as the foundation for this paper’s findings. The findings reveal that BCA for companies with a disrupting financial technology (FinTech) attitude can help in securing corporate transaction transparency; offer knowledge, same-data, and information sharing; enhance fidelity, integrity, and trust; improve organizational procedures; and prevent fraud with cyber-hacking protection and fraudulence suspension. Moreover, blockchain’s smart contract utilization feature offers ESG and sustainability functionality. This paper’s novelty is the projection to four business sectors of the three-layer research sequence: (i) financial variables operated as BCA functionalities, (ii) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities associated with the financial variables, and (iii) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlook of BCA/FinTech issues. And the ability of managers or practitioners to reference this sequence and make decisions on BCA matters is considered a key contribution. The proposed methodology provides business practitioners with valuable insights to reevaluate their economic challenges and explore the potential of blockchain technology to address them. This study combined a systematic literature review (SLR) with qualitative analysis as part of a hybrid research approach. Quantitative analysis was carried out on all 835 selected papers in the first step, and qualitative analysis was carried out on the top-cited papers that were screened. The current work highlights the key challenges and opportunities in established blockchain implementations and discusses the outlook potentiality of blockchain technology adoption. This study will be useful to managers, practitioners, researchers, and scholars.

1. Introduction

In Industry 4.0, the global fraud detection and prevention market is expected to grow significantly, driven by the increasing use of digital technologies and the adoption of risk-based authentication and fraud analysis solutions.
No comprehensive study addresses the contributions of blockchain technology (BCT) adoption (BCA) on some critical business functionalities (regarded as financial variables), and this is a research gap in a real problem [1,2,3,4,5]. Addressing BCA’s influence on these financial variables is an important issue for managers and corporates interested in disrupting FinTech functionalities [6,7,8,9].
In this domain, BCA initiatives are increasingly used in different contexts, showing exponential growth [10,11,12]. However, these initiatives are susceptible to different types of fraud, fidelity, and integration issues, leading to distrust and discouraging user investment. For these reasons, it is necessary to integrate financial variables operated as BCA functionalities, with the issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities associated with these financial variables. Moreover, there is a need to correlate BCA contributions to corporate management, ESG and DEI implications, integration questions on BCA implementation, potentiality, and BCA outlook with the BCA/FinTech issues [13,14,15,16] to improve the early detection of transparency issues, fraud, and anomalous behavior in digital transformation initiatives.
Despite the growing interest in BCA, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding its practical application and impact on corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets. Many existing studies focus on theoretical frameworks or isolated case studies, lacking a comprehensive analysis of BCA practices, challenges, and potential solutions across various contexts [17,18,19,20]. This paper aims to address this gap by systematically reviewing the literature to provide a holistic understanding of BCA implementation in four critical business application areas (corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets).
BCA applications have increased after the COVID-19 pandemic [21,22,23,24], so this study evaluated those works published from 2013 to 2022 and aimed to compile and analyze the primary studies on the subject. This research undertook a comprehensive and systematic analysis to identify the financial variables, issues, and contributions involved in BCA.
The analysis, conducted through a statistical approach, reveals the most significant associations based on bibliometric variables such as the year of publication, and total citations. The PRISMA methodology was employed for this purpose, and this systematic review aimed to consolidate existing knowledge in the BCA/FinTech domain, identify research gaps, and provide valuable insights for further research directions.
Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to close this theoretical gap and determine how BCA has contributed to four key business sectors (corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets) that were selected since FinTech had the greatest potential in these domains [25,26,27,28].
This study aimed to investigate how the adoption of blockchain technology in sectors with great FinTech potential [29,30,31] (corporation and supply chain management, banking industry, and stock market investment and trading) is affecting many business functionalities projected as financial variables or BCA functionalities [32,33,34,35,36], including faithfulness, fidelity, transparency, trust, corporate performance, integrity, traceability, loyalty, commitment, privacy, anonymity, and security [37,38,39,40].
The goals of this research was to find, record, and analyze the critical key findings (e.g., data, procedures, benefits, costs, problems, issues, opportunities, and challenges) on how blockchain technology may be adopted for disrupting FinTech functions [41,42,43,44,45], and to investigate its applicability and future outcomes in several important business operations [46,47,48,49,50]. The invention comes with costs and rewards, and there is, always, resistance to change. Thus, the difficulties involved in implementing blockchain technology should not be underestimated [51,52,53,54,55].
A systematic literature review (SLR), and content analysis classification are the literature review tools used in this article, and they can add to the body of knowledge in several ways, as stand-alone, autonomous investigations [56,57,58,59].
In general, SLR and content analysis make three main contributions when they are conducted independently: (i) to present an overview of the state of knowledge and its implication in application areas, methods, or theory; (ii) to assess the issues, problems, and opportunities involved; and (iii) to propose future directions for knowledge advancement in the application domain, methodology, and research [60,61,62,63,64]. Furthermore, meta-analysis helps to integrate accumulated knowledge for solid pieces of evidence and logical arguments (academic reasoning) [65,66,67,68,69].
The study will contribute to the development of a comprehensive BCA/FinTech framework that will highlight the state of blockchain adoption today concerning critical business functions, implementation problems, security issues, and management affairs [70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80].
To our knowledge, this is the first paper that addresses, through an SLR and content analysis classification, how particular key findings on BCA manage and influence significant business, financial, and commercial functions, and tasks.
The scope of the proposed systematic review is to “identify, record, and evaluate for future use when ambitious and willing management decides to proceed with blockchain technology adoption for disrupting FinTech functionalities in corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets”, and is described through the search keywords, research question, and eligibility criteria.
Four search keywords were used according to the scope of this review (corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, stock markets, and blockchain technology adoption).
Additionally, the following three review research questions are formulated to comprehend the current uses of blockchain in FinTech sectors and functions.
RQ1.
What are the financial variables (BCA functionalities) of present BCA/FinTech applications and their implications in a particular business sector?
There are costs and benefits associated with innovation and technological advancement, yet resistance to change is constant. It is important to acknowledge the challenges associated with implementing blockchain technology to allow further research. As a result, the subsequent research inquiry is formulated.
RQ2.
What are the issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities associated with financial variables operated as BCA functionalities in a particular business sector?
What lies ahead for the researchers and company is another field of study, aside from its application in corporate operations, hypotheses, propositions, potentialities, and obstacles. As a result, the subsequent research inquiry is developed.
RQ3.
What are the implications, theoretical contributions (hypotheses, propositions, etc.), questions, potentiality, and outlook of BCA/FinTech issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities in a particular business sector?
To address these three research issues, a comprehensive SLR of peer-reviewed articles on the BCA/FinTech discipline was applied in this article.
Finally, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, based on the review’s scope were used to search for keywords, and research questions, were used to include and exclude studies (academic articles about BCT practices). Hence, to be included in the review, an article needed to meet all inclusion criteria for eligibility and could not meet any exclusion criteria.
To reach conclusions regarding the review research questions under consideration, a seven-step SLR was used in this study as an independent academic approach (framing the research questions, identifying relevant publications, assessing study quality, summarizing the evidence (see Section 5.1, Section 5.2, Section 5.3 and Section 5.4), interpreting the findings, deriving quantitative assessment (see Section 5.5), considering the effect of BCA on critical financial variables regarded as BCA functionalities (see Section 5.6), and issuing content classification and spatial–temporal evolution statistics (see Section 5.7). Its objectives were to identify, assess, evaluate, and investigate all pertinent literature on BCA/FinTech topics so that corporate management can find these results useful when investigating the possibility of adopting BCT in corporate business.
In this paper, “blockchain technology adoption” and “business sectors” were set as the most important keywords, and “document type” was set as “Article or Proceeding Paper”, and finally, 318 papers were screened in the Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI open-access databases. In particular, this study used a hybrid research method combining qualitative analysis and systematic literature review (SLR). The first step was to perform quantitative analysis on all 835 selected papers, and the second step was to perform qualitative analysis on the screened highly cited papers (7 papers per application domain area/business sector). Based on the above analysis, this paper proposes a systematic research framework.
This paper has the following contributions. First, the proposed framework organically combines blockchain technology, BCA issues, and business application scenarios. This framework is insightful for business practitioners to rethink the economic problems they face and consider the possibility of using blockchain technology to solve them. Second, several future research topics are proposed in this paper. We believe that these suggestions can direct corporate managers, business practitioners, and blockchain technology experts to work together and make huge differences in business.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2 (Research Background), the literature background for blockchain technology adoption in FinTech sectors and functions and four application domain areas with the greatest FinTech potentiality are presented. In Section 3 (Methodology), the method and the procedures for the BCA/FinTech SLR analysis using a customized PRISMA-adapted protocol are introduced to guide academic content data curation, screening, and analysis.
In Section 4 (Research Strategy for Literature Exhausting), the five literature research techniques used for the proposed SLR are presented. In Section 5 (Results), the SLR is applied, under a customized PRISMA protocol, for academic content selection, screening, extraction, and analysis. In Section 6, a discussion is presented, and finally, in Section 7, the conclusions are presented for contributions, findings, practical applications, implications, limitations, and future directions.

2. Research Background

2.1. Literature Review

One of the most significant and inspiring technologies in Industry 4.0 is blockchain technology (BCT) [1,2,15,22]. It is believed to have the capacity to alter how the economy and business sector operate fundamentally; it presents numerous opportunities for both the expansion of current enterprises and the creation of brand-new ones, as well as significant challenges to established ones [17,18,19,20,32]. This proof is provided by BCT, a revolutionary solution for distributed ledgers that reduces fraud and cyberattacks, facilitates knowledge and same-data sharing among stakeholders, introduces smart contracts, and eliminates brokers, agents, and middlemen [39,52].
Because BCT leverages advanced cryptography to provide secure digital signatures and timestamping, it fosters trust and transparent administration by making it more difficult for unscrupulous actors to falsify or fabricate digital assets or transactions [36]. As a result, participants in the metaverse ecosystem experience increased faithfulness, trust, and confidence [17]. Consequently, corporate blockchain transformation presents a fresh difficulty for management of entrepreneurship [18,19].
Using innovative technologies for financial services is known as financial technology, or FinTech. FinTech is presently utilizing several technologies, including blockchain, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence [28,72]. By providing digital financial services to people worldwide, FinTech has demonstrated its actual potential in conventional financial offers. This study examined how FinTech can be disrupted by blockchain adoption (BCA) [20,21,22,23,24]. BCT is essential to the financial industry because, by employing consensus-based verification, it eventually increases confidence and reduces the need for third-party verification [33,34,35].
In the FinTech domain, BCA affects many business and financial operations, including corporate management, supply chain, banking, and stock markets [6,47]. Prior research has elucidated the benefits, constraints, efficacy, and difficulties associated with utilizing BCT across a range of business, management, and financial operations [1,5,9,10,11,12,25,26,27,28,29].
Nonetheless, given the swift evolution of both BCT and the global business environment, it is imperative to possess a comprehensive understanding of the advancements and uses of BCT within the business and management domain. Furthermore, it is important to recognize and emphasize how BCT may be used to help business organizations create value [32,39].
It is anticipated that management will change how business is conducted by organizing and managing its core tasks, such as banking, operations, marketing, and stock market trading [6,43,47,66]. Value creation is anticipated for all parties involved.
Since the primary goal of BCT is to record and carry out transactions securely and safely, its applicability is sufficiently broad to include most financial domains [9,10,11,12]. Banking, insurance, seed capital, trade finance, and capital markets are among the industries that use technology and smart contracts. Companies and authorities worldwide have also built blockchain platforms for assurance, auditing, and financial reporting [25,26,27,28,29,30,31].
A crucial characteristic of accounting information is its dependability and security. Accountants, auditors, and investors all want to see a company’s accounting data to be trustworthy and dependable. This also affects the financial market since more dependable financial reporting leads to more effective financial markets [9,10,11,12,33,70]. Because the auditor would need to spend less time confirming the accuracy of the accounting information, this is also advantageous to the auditors [11,12,27].
The integration of BCT into financial systems and procedures, or “blockchain adoption for FinTech” (BCA/FinTech), will reduce the likelihood of cyberattacks and financial fraud [7,38]. Because it is tamper-proof, BCT offers excellent security and defense against financial fraud and cyberattacks [40,44].
Additionally, BCT provides a solid basis for intelligent contracts, which have the potential to significantly increase financial efficiency. Smart contracts have the potential to automate transactions and drastically lower their costs; they also have the potential to automate contract implementation and enforcement in addition to transactions [33,67].
To conclude the matter under consideration (i.e., key findings on how FinTech can be disrupted by blockchain adoption), an impartial academic procedure, namely, a seven-step systematic literature review (SLR, [58]), which includes (i) framing the review question, (ii) identifying relevant publications, (iii) assessing the study quality, (iv) summarizing the evidence, and (v) interpreting the findings [59]), seeks to locate and assess all pertinent literature on the subject and to provide data and information for content analysis classification and meta-analysis methods [46,71,72,79].

2.2. BCA/FinTech Application Domain Areas

The main corporate business sectors, as BCA/FinTech application domain areas, disciplines, and functions with the greatest FinTech potentiality, are described in [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18] and summarized as follows:
BCA/FinTech and Corporate Management (CM): In the corporate management sector, BCT technologies find several applications [1,10,11] with significant implications [9,12,19,29]. Operation managers can benefit from using blockchain technology in their day-to-day work in many ways, including faster response times, safe and secure data, correct visibility across nodes, and transparent transactions [23,30,70].
BCA/FinTech and Supply Chain (SC): In the supply chain sector, BCT technologies find many applications [22,45] with important implications [48,49]. Supply chain managers can benefit from using blockchain technology in several ways, including faster response times, transparent transactions, and the trust of supply chain participants [63,71].
BCA/FinTech and the Banking Industry (BI): In the banking industry, blockchain has the potential to improve performance [43,66], speed up payments [50], reduce bank expenses [50,51], and increase the volume of secure financial transactions [20,65]. BCT has many advantages, but there are significant challenges and barriers to its use in the financial and banking industry [17,43,65].
BCA/FinTech and the Stock Markets (SM): In the stock market sector, BCT technologies find considerable applications [31,47] with extraordinary implications [54,61,62].
Therefore, there is an important area of research in the field of BCA/FinTech with exposure to corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets. Accordingly, relative key findings (e.g., data, procedures, benefits, costs, problems, issues, opportunities, challenges) must be found and recorded, even as self-judging assumptions, because this will help managers, practitioners, and scholars when they decide to proceed to BCA in corporate management [9,10,11,12,25,26,27,33], supply chain [22,45,71], banking industry [20,51,66], and the stock market sector [31,47].

3. Methodology

Following a hybrid research approach, this study integrated a systematic literature review with qualitative analysis. The first step involves conducting quantitative analysis on all selected papers, while qualitative analysis was performed on the screened top-cited papers.
The flowchart of the proposed methodology is as follows:
SLR (seven most cited papers/sector) → Text analysis of the seven most cited papers → Key findings → Financial variables operated as BCA functionalities (RQ1) → Issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities (RQ2) → Implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlook (RQ3) → Quantitative analysis → Qualitative analysis → Statistics.
The qualitative analysis and systematic literature review were combined in this study’s hybrid research methodology. Seven papers per application domain area (business sector) were chosen for qualitative analysis after the first 835 selected papers were subjected to quantitative analysis. This study suggests a methodical research approach in light of the aforementioned findings.
Four parameters, as methodology criteria, were established to guarantee that the maximum number of articles about BCA models utilized in the application domain areas (business sectors) would be found [72].
Selection of Methodology (1st methodology criterion). Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) technique to obtain final articles is the first requirement. PRISMA is a systematic literature review process based on evidence that involves four stages: (i) identification, (ii) screening, (iii) eligibility, and (iv) inclusion [59]. Its purpose is to systematically increase the likelihood of discovering the most relevant articles [56,57,58,59].
Selection of Databases (2nd methodology criterion). The second criterion pertains to the databases that were used for the article search. Four databases, namely Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI open access archive, were employed for this. While Web of Science contains 22,002 journals, books, and conference proceedings, Scopus covers 42,322 journals, book series, and conference proceedings; the overlap rate of articles between these two databases is 99.11% [73].
Selection of Keywords (3rd methodology criterion). Using the right keywords is the third requirement to view the greatest number of connected articles. The literature search approach used in this study is summed up in the following list of query terms. Notably, a search was conducted with the terms “abstract”, “keywords”, and “article title” [72].
Query terms:
“Corporate Management” OR “Supply Chain” OR “Banking Industry” OR “Stock Markets”
AND
“Blockchain Technology Adoption”
Selection of Majors (4th methodology criterion). Using a multidisciplinary strategy when searching for articles is the fourth criterion that this study employed to assess the route to find papers ready for review. With this method, one may perform a keyword search across all journals across many fields, without being limited to a specific journal or journal category.
The following list presents the range of the studies covered by the SLR. The inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting articles were determined using keywords to ensure the reliability of the database and results. The time frame for the systematic search procedure was defined as being from 2013 to 2023 to ensure coverage of recently available knowledge concerning blockchain technology adoption and the four business sectors. The Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI archives were the databases used to identify the most relevant types of articles in the English language published in academic journals [73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80].
The timeframe, data sources, search terms, and databases used in the proposed SLR are as follows:
  • Timeframe: 2013–2022;
  • Data source: Journal articles and conference papers published in English;
  • Search keywords and terms: (“corporate management” OR “supply chain” OR “banking industry” OR “stock markets”) AND (“Blockchain technology adoption”);
  • Searched databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI archives.
To determine whether a paper met the inclusion criteria, the title, abstract, keywords, and content were scanned (see Figure 1) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [59]. The papers irrelevant to the above four questions that guided the proposed SLR were excluded. This process filtered out many papers, resulting in the seven most cited articles.
In bibliometrics, content analysis, and meta-analysis, an update to the guideline was required over the last ten years due to advancements in systematic review methodology and terminology [13,46,56,57,58]. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement, which supersedes the 2009 version, has updated reporting guidelines that account for advancements in the identification, selection, appraisal, and synthesis of literature reviews, bibliographic studies, and meta-analyses [56,57,73,74,75,76].
The purpose of the 27-item PRISMA checklist is to increase systematic review transparency. These include the title, abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, and financing, and they cover every facet of the publication [13,59,79,80]. Since this is the accepted style for reporting systemic reviews, this article complies with PRISMA rules and checklists.
For the proposed SLR, for academic content classification, a customized PRISMA-adapted protocol is introduced to guide academic content data curation, screening, and analysis [56,71,72]. It was designed to help transparency of systematic reviews and refers to the definition of the search databases consulted, the formalization of the research questions, the clarification of the search keywords used (according to the defined research questions), and the inclusion and exclusion criteria followed (according to the defined research questions) [13,77,78].
The proposed SLR framework for four independent SLR studies corresponding to the four application domain areas (business sectors) is presented in Figure 2.
In Step 1, the following four business and financial functions, as BCA/FinTech application domain discipline areas, are defined as the BCA/FinTech disciplines under consideration: Corporate management, Supply chain, Banking industry, and Stock markets.
SLR Subject area: The focus of this literature review is on the BCA for disrupting FinTech discipline, which is projected to the widely accepted BCA/FinTech application domain discipline’s areas with the greatest FinTech potentiality [12,25,26,27].
In Step 2 (2nd methodology criterion), to address the three research questions, the academic search databases Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI open access archive, are used to extract and select peer-reviewed articles on the BCA/FinTech disciplines. These search databases are the largest scientific databases of scholarly articles that can provide on-demand bibliographic data or records [56,57,58].
In Step 3 (3rd methodology criterion), the following four search keywords were used according to the defined SLR scope and the application domain areas (sectors) in Step 1: (“corporate management” OR “supply chain” OR “banking industry” OR “stock markets”) AND “Blockchain adoption”.
Search keywords may be developed by reading scholarly documents and subsequently brainstorming with experts. The expanding number of databases, journals, periodicals, automated approaches, and semi-automated procedures that use text mining and machine learning can offer researchers the ability to source new, relevant research and forecast the citations of influential studies. This enables them to determine further relevant articles.
Search period: November 2023–June 2024 is defined as the search period.
Search field: The search field, in “article title, abstract, and keywords” is defined based on self- and literature-justified assumptions (e.g., it is assumed that the focus of relevant documents will be mentioned in the article title, abstract, and/or keywords) [13,58].
Language: English. The English language selection is based on justified self-arguing limitations. The English language is currently the de facto academic lingua franca, with few justifications for using any other language.
In Step 4, the SLR research questions are defined.
In Step 5, the SLR inclusion/exclusion searching criteria are defined according to scope, search keywords, and research questions.
The explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, based on the review’s scope, search keywords, and research questions, are used to include and exclude studies (academic articles about BCT practices). Hence, an article to be included in the review needs to meet all inclusion criteria for eligibility, and may not meet any exclusion criteria.
The following eligibility (inclusion) criteria were used for the article characteristics:
  • Expectation: Best BCA practices have been identified;
  • Language: English;
  • Years considered (SLR time scope): 2013–2022;
  • Publication identity: DOI;
  • Outcomes: Disrupting FinTech functionalities.
Respectively, the following exclusion criteria were used:
  • Articles about theory rather than practice;
  • Non-English articles;
  • Articles published before 1 January 2013;
  • Non-peer-reviewed articles.
Step 6 highlights the seven most cited studies after SLR projection and academic content filtering with these inclusion/exclusion criteria.
In Step 7, BCA functionality is derived, and six (6) key findings are defined as self-judged assumptions (self-judging assumption: an evidence-based reasoning that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without scientific proof, with a minimum set of items for inclusion/exclusion searching criteria and reporting in this systematic review) from recorded experiences and good practices [13,74,75,76,77,78]. Following, in Step 8, the key findings (regarded as self-judging assumptions) are projected/cross-referenced to financial variables as BCA functionalities [13].
Finally, in Step 9, the potential issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities are identified to help managers interested in blockchain technology decide whether to adopt BCT (BCA), and in Step 10, the potential BCA implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlook are considered an advisory to BCA/FinTech-interested managers.
To highlight the top seven cited articles in each of the four business and financial function BCA/FinTech application areas, the report conducts a comprehensive literature review of journal articles, proceedings papers, technical reports, and book chapters according to the six assumptions. The uses, ramifications, difficulties, prospects, and possibilities of BCA for FinTech and corporate management are covered in these articles.
In the proposed SLR, the following six assumptions have been defined, and they are considered as “key findings”:
  • Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
  • Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
  • Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
  • Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
  • Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
  • By adopting cryptocurrencies, the BCA/FinTech becomes more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Following are the structural elements of the customized PRISMA protocol applied in the systematic bibliographic research and review:
BCA/FinTech application domain: Four BCA/FinTech application domain sectors are categorized.
Search databases consulted (2nd methodology criterion): Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI open access archive.
Search keywords (3rd methodology criterion): (“Corporate Management” OR “Supply Chain” OR “Banking Industry” OR “Stock Markets”) AND “Blockchain Technology Adoption”.
Research question formulation: RQ1 (BCA applications), RQ2 (BCA issues, challenges, and opportunities), and RQ3 (BCA potentiality and outlook).
SLR eligibility criteria: Five inclusion and four exclusion criteria.
Key findings: Six key findings as self-judging assumptions.
The current study as depicted in Figure 3 will focus on the applications and value creation of BCA/FinTech in managing the four BCA/FinTech business and financial functions.

4. Research Strategy for Exhausting the Literature—A Multidisciplinary Approach (Fourth Methodology Criterion)

Upon exhausting the literature search the SLR researchers are familiar with all key findings, and recent developments in the field. Unfortunately, there is no way to exhaust all of the literature in general and the four defined search areas in particular.
Therefore, it is important to ensure that everything possible has been done to comprehensively research the topic under consideration. In a simple linear literature search approach, the same articles and books appear even when changing the search terms and techniques.
The literature-exhausting multidisciplinary approach, as the fourth criterion, adopted by this research has as the following objectives: (a) identifying important steps to take before stopping research on the topic, (b) using resources and search tools for comprehensive research on the topic, and (c) obtaining research assistance through library support channels.
Consequently, the proposed multidisciplinary approach uses all of the library search techniques as follows.

4.1. Find Top-Cited Articles in Library Databases

Step 1:
Define the topic/discipline (e.g., corporate management).
Step 2:
Read the top-cited articles (Figure 4).
Step 3:
Several library databases include hyperlinks to the selected top-cited articles. Determine whether the selected citing articles are building off the research established in the defined topic/discipline.

4.2. Define an Article as a Prototype and Find Related Articles

Step 1:
Select a study (e.g., a journal article on supply chains) and define it as the prototype.
Step 2:
Some databases provide a link to “recommended articles”, “similar articles”, and “related articles”. Click on these links to pull up results that may be similar to the prototype study (Figure 5).

4.3. Use Clarivate’s Web of Knowledge

Step 1:
Access the Web of Knowledge from the “Discover Multidisciplinary Content” dialog box (Figure 6).
Step 2:
Find high-impact articles on the specified research topic (corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets).
Step 3:
Sign up for a personal account to create search and citation alerts.
Step 4:
Create a marked tabular list of studies in the specified research field/discipline with the (Authors, Title, and Citations) as fields.

4.4. Use of SAGE Navigator

Step 1:
Access SAGE Navigator from the “navigator” dialog box (Figure 7).
Step 2:
Find the “Business and Management” topic; once you have selected a major work of interest from the search results, click on the “Key Readings” tab (Figure 8).
Step 3:
View a list of “recommended readings” from the key literature, including journal papers, proceedings articles, book chapters, etc.

4.5. Get Librarian Assistance for Research Consultations and Recorded Video Research Consultations

Step 1:
Research Consultations: Live, one-to-one sessions with a librarian that provide customized in-depth, high-level research assistance.
Step 2:
Fill out the request forms in detail (Figure 9)

5. Results and Analysis

Through a customized PRISMA-adapted protocol, blockchain applications and their implications in four key business sectors were studied, analyzed, and documented for systematic bibliographic and literature review.
In this study, the SLR was applied with the following aspects (customized PRISMA protocol as the first criterion regarding the selection of methodology) for academic content selection, screening, extraction, and analysis:
Search databases (the second methodology criterion): Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI open-access archives were selected based on justified evidence [13,56,57,58].
Subject area: The focus of this literature review and content analysis classification is on the BCA for disrupting the FinTech discipline, as described by the application areas: corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets.
Search keywords (the third methodology criterion): (“corporate management” OR “supply chain” OR “banking industry” OR “stock markets”) AND “Blockchain technology adoption”.
Search period: November 2023–June 2024.
Search field: The search field “article title–abstract–keywords” was selected.
Following, the three research questions, presented in Section 1 and discussed in Section 3, are projected into the six BCA/FinTech business and financial functions of Figure 3.
RQ1What are the financial variables (BCA functionalities) of present BCA/FinTech applications and their implications in a particular business sector?
RQ2What are the issues and opportunities associated with financial variables operated as BCA functionalities in a particular business sector?
RQ3What are the implications, theoretical contributions (hypotheses, propositions, etc.), questions, potentiality, and outlook of BCA/FinTech issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities in a particular business sector?
SLR eligibility criteria:
Inclusion criteria
  • Expectation: Best BCA practices have been identified
  • Language: English
  • Years considered (SLR time scope): 2013–2022,
  • Publication identity: DOI
  • Outcomes: Disrupting FinTech functionalities
Exclusion criteria
  • Articles about theory rather than practice
  • Non-English articles
  • Articles published before 1 January 2013
  • Non-peer-reviewed articles

5.1. Corporate Management

To determine the factors that influence the impact of the studies, the bibliographic data for BCA/FinTech and corporate management are collected and the spatial–temporal evolution of the scientific production on this theme is analyzed, through a bibliometric analysis of content available in the main editorial houses (Elsevier, MDPI, IEEE, ACM, and Springer), open-access journal articles and content academic databases (Elsevier/ScienceDirect; IEEE/Xplore, Access; ACM/Digital Library; and Springer/Link, Open), citation index databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and DOAJ), and the freely accessible Web search engine Google Scholar.
From November 2023 to June 2024, 225 papers were initially considered (SLR selection journal articles from the search databases (see customized PRISMA protocol) and with a time period scope of 2013–2022. Of these 225 papers, 95 were screened (SLR screening studies) [1,2,8,12,14,15,16,17,18,19,31,32,35,37,38,39,40,41,42,44,52,55,60,67,69,70,72,74,77,78,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145], and the seven most cited articles were finally selected (see Figure 1) and presented in Table 1 [15,16,18,37,40,41,42]. The spatial–temporal evolution analysis showed an incremental linear temporal evolution of increased citations from 2014 to 2019 that concentrated geographically in the USA (28.57%), China (28.57%), Asia (28.57%), and Canada (14.29%) (Table 1).
Following is the list of the compatible key findings, after the text analysis [15,16,18,37,40,41,42] of the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and corporate management:
  • [Key finding #1] Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
  • [Key finding #2] Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
  • [Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions.
  • [Key finding #4] Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability and accountability.
  • [Key finding #5] By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
From these five key findings, the following six (6) financial variables (RQ1), operated as BCA functionalities for corporate management, are produced according to the literature [16,18,19,23,29,30,33,70]: loyalty (from key findings #1, and #5), commitment (from key findings #1, and #5), faithfulness (from key findings #1, and #5), integrity (from key finding #2), trust (from key finding #3), and traceability–accountability (from key findings #4, and #5).
Additionally, from these six (6) financial variables, the following four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities (RQ2) are produced according to the literature [25,26,27,37,42]: security risks (from loyalty, commitment, faithfulness, and trust), skill gaps (from integrity, and traceability–accountability), integration-related issues with other company’s units (from integrity), and performance-related limitations (from integrity and traceability–accountability).
Finally, from the above four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities, the following five (5) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlooks (RQ3) are produced according to the literature [10,15,30,37,40]: how to protect data subjects against data harm (from security risks and skill gaps), governance and internal control (from security risks and integration-related issues with another company’s units), auditability (from skill gaps), direct peer-to-peer transactions via cryptocurrencies eliminating middlemen and reducing transaction time (from skill gaps, performance-related limitations), and scalability (from performance-related limitations).

5.2. Supply Chain

To determine the factors that influence the impact of the studies, the bibliographic data for BCA/FinTech and supply chain are collected and the spatial–temporal evolution of the scientific production on this theme is analyzed, through a bibliometric analysis of content available in the main editorial houses (Elsevier, MDPI, IEEE, ACM, and Springer), open-access journal articles and content academic databases (Elsevier/ScienceDirect; IEEE/Xplore, Access; ACM/Digital Library; and Springer/Link, Open), citation index databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and DOAJ), and the freely accessible Web search engine Google Scholar.
From November 2023 to June 2024, 302 papers were initially considered (SLR selection journal articles from the search databases (see customized PRISMA protocol) and with a time period scope of 2013–2022. Of these 302 articles, 104 were screened (SLR screening studies) [16,22,32,39,40,41,42,44,45,48,70,77,80,81,84,85,86,89,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,106,107,108,109,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,126,128,130,132,133,135,136,137,140,143,144,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201], and seven, the most cited articles, were finally selected (see Figure 1) and are presented in Table 2 [16,39,40,41,42,44,45]. The spatial–temporal evolution analysis showed an incremental non-linear temporal evolution citing from 2016 to 2019 that concentrated geographically in Asia (42.85), the USA (28.57%), Europe (14.29%), and Canada (14.29%) (Table 2).
Following is the list of the compatible key findings after the text analysis [16,39,40,41,42,44,45] of the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and supply chain:
  • [Key finding #1] Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
  • [Key finding #2] Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
  • [Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
  • [Key finding #4] Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability and accountability.
  • [Key finding #6] Information-sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
From these five key findings, the following five (5) financial variables (RQ1), operated as BCA functionalities for the supply chain, are produced according to the literature [16,22,39,40,45,48,49]: loyalty (from key finding #1), commitment (from key finding #1), faithfulness (from key finding #1), traceability–accountability (from key finding #2 and #4), and fidelity (from key findings #3, #4, and #6).
Additionally, from these five (5) financial variables, the following four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities (RQ2) are produced according to the literature [22,41,42,48,63,71]: security risks (from loyalty, commitment, faithfulness, and fidelity), the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data (from fidelity), high cost of implementation (from traceability–accountability), and enhanced sustainability efforts by improving tracking and verifying emissions (from traceability–accountability).
Finally, from the above four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities, the following four (4) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlooks (RQ3) are produced according to the literature [40,42,45,63,71]: data privacy (from security risks and the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data), harmonizing the innovation BCT spirit with pragmatic needs of financial governance (from high implementation cost), trust among users (from the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data and security risks), and decentralization (from high implementation costs and enhanced sustainability efforts by improving tracking and verifying emissions).

5.3. Banking Industry

To determine the factors that influence the impact of the studies, the bibliographic data for BCA/FinTech and the banking industry are collected and the spatial–temporal evolution of the scientific production on this theme is analyzed, through a bibliometric analysis of content available in the main editorial houses (Elsevier, MDPI, IEEE, ACM, and Springer), open-access journal articles and content academic databases (Elsevier/ScienceDirect; IEEE/Xplore, Access; ACM/Digital Library; and Springer/Link, Open), citation index databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and DOAJ), and the freely accessible Web search engine Google Scholar.
From November 2023 to June 2024, 252 papers were initially considered (SLR-selected journal articles from the search databases (see customized PRISMA protocol) and with a time period scope of 2013–2022. Of these 252 articles, 77 were screened (SLR screening studies) [17,20,39,41,42,43,44,50,51,65,66,86,101,106,107,108,112,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,125,130,132,133,136,137,138,139,141,143,144,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243], and seven, the most cited articles, were finally selected (see Figure 1) and are presented in Table 3 [17,39,41,42,43,44,50]. The spatial–temporal evolution analysis showed a stable temporal evolution of increasing citations from 2016 to 2022 that concentrated geographically in Asia (42.84%), the USA (14.29%), Europe (14.29%), China (14.29%), and Canada (14.29%) (Table 3).
Following is the list of the compatible key findings, after text analysis [17,39,41,42,43,44,50] of the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and the banking industry:
  • [Key finding #1] Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
  • [Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
  • [Key finding #5] By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
  • [Key finding #6] Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
From these four key findings, the following five (5) financial variables (RQ1), operated as BCA functionalities for the banking industry, are produced according to the literature [20,39,41,43,50,66]: transparency (from key findings #1 and #5), (efficient, scalable, and durable) performance (from key finding #5), anonymity (from key findings #5 and #6), security (from key finding #3), and privacy (from key findings #1, #5, and #6).
Additionally, from these five (5) financial variables, the following five (5) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities (RQ2) are produced according to the literature [17,20,41,42,43,50,51]: performance-related limitations (from performance), skill gaps (from performance and anonymity), security risks (from security and privacy), enhanced sustainability efforts by improving tracking and verifying emissions (from performance), and the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data (from anonymity and transparency).
Finally, from the above five (5) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities, the following three (3) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlooks (RQ3) are produced according to the literature [20,39,41,42,51,66]: capital-intensive investments deter most companies from adopting BCT (from performance-related limitations and skill gaps), holding companies accountable for their sustainability claims (from the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data and security risks), and track carbon balances and other environmental metrics (from enhanced sustainability efforts by improving tracking and verifying emissions).

5.4. Stock Markets

To determine the factors that influence the impact of the studies, the bibliographic data for BCA/FinTech and the stock markets are collected and the spatial–temporal evolution of the scientific production on this theme is analyzed, through a bibliometric analysis of content available in the main editorial houses (Elsevier, MDPI, IEEE, ACM, and Springer), open-access journal articles and content academic databases (Elsevier/ScienceDirect; IEEE/Xplore, Access; ACM/Digital Library; and Springer/Link, Open), citation index databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and DOAJ), and the freely accessible Web search engine Google Scholar.
From November 2023 to June 2024, 96 papers were initially considered (SLR-selected journal articles from the search databases (see customized PRISMA protocol) and with a time period scope of 2013–2022. Of these 96 articles, 42 were screened (SLR screening studies) [18,31,39,40,41,47,51,52,60,61,62,67,91,93,100,101,106,108,112,117,118,119,122,123,124,130,133,136,137,140,141,143,144,145,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251], and seven, the most cited articles, were finally selected (see Figure 1) and are presented in Table 4 [18,39,40,41,51,52,67]. The spatial–temporal evolution analysis showed an incremental linear temporal evolution of increasing citations from 2015 to 2018 that concentrated geographically in Asia (35.70%), the USA (21.43%), Canada (14.29%), Europe (14.29%), and China (14.29%) (Table 5).
Following is the list of the compatible key findings, after the text analysis [18,39,40,41,51,52,67] of the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and the stock markets:
  • [Key finding #1] Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
  • [Key finding #3] Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (stock markets, etc.).
  • [Key finding #5] By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
  • [Key finding #6] Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
From these four key findings, the following four (4) financial variables (RQ1), operated as BCA functionalities for the stock markets, are produced according to the literature [18,31,39,47,61]: commitment (from key findings #1 and #5), faithfulness (from key finding #1), trust (from key findings #3 and #5), and fidelity (from key finding #6).
Additionally, from these four (4) financial variables, the following four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities (RQ2) are produced according to the literature [18,31,54,61,62,67]: security risks (from commitment, faithfulness, trust, and fidelity), the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data (from trust and fidelity), integration-related issues with another company’s units (from commitment and trust), and performance-related limitations (from commitment and trust).
Finally, from the above four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities, the following three (3) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlooks (RQ3) are produced according to the literature [31,40,41,47,51,52,54]: how to protect data subjects against data harm (from integration-related issues with another company’s units), data privacy (from security risks and the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data), and direct peer-to-peer transactions via cryptocurrencies eliminating middlemen and reducing transaction time (from performance-related limitations).

5.5. Derived Quantitative Assessment

The objective establishment of a quantitative estimate of frequently examined correlations in the literature enables content analysis classification [56,57,58,59]. Usually, this kind of analysis is used in systematic literature reviews that aim to reconcile a wide range of correlations [13,46,71,72]. Conflicting evidence frequently makes up the correlations that have been established (e.g., a positive or significant effect in one study, but a negative or insignificant effect in another study).
Additionally, researchers can pinpoint probable causes of the conflict (such as settings or sociodemographic data) through the use of meta-analysis [58]. Through meta-analysis, researchers can unbiasedly develop a quantitative evaluation of commonly explored relationships in the literature.
Table 5 presents in a tabular form the derivative quantitative information, as integrating accumulated knowledge, extracted from Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, in which content was structured based on self-judging and self-arguing criteria.
Table 5. The corporate BCA/FinTech six key findings (assumptions) and the four selected business/financial functions: derivative information for quantitative assessment.
Table 5. The corporate BCA/FinTech six key findings (assumptions) and the four selected business/financial functions: derivative information for quantitative assessment.
Bibliographic Research for Corporate BCA for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities
(BCA/FinTech Assumptions)
Corporate Business and Financial Functions (BCA/FinTech Application Domain)
Key FindingsKey Findings
(Assumptions)
Corporate ManagementSupply ChainBanking IndustryStock Markets
#1Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
#2Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
#3Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
#4Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
#5By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
#6Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
Although the data from Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 were produced from self-judging inclusion and exclusion criteria and the self-arguing six assumptions (key findings), an SLR method should provide solid pieces of evidence for logical arguments.

5.6. BCA Effect on Critical Financial Variables

In analyzing the SLR derivative information from Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5, the proposed sequence “BCA functionalities → Issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities → Implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlook” is documented as integrated accumulated knowledge in tabular (Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8) and graphical formats (Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12).
  • Comments
In corporate management, BCA has a significant positive effect on 6 out of the 12 financial variables. In the supply chain sector, BCA has a significant positive effect on 5 out of the 12 financial variables. In the banking industry, BCA has a significant positive effect on 5 out of the 12 financial variables, and in the stock market sector, BCA has a significant positive effect on 4 out of the 12 financial variables.
The financial variables faithfulness and commitment appear to be supported by BCA, as BCA functionalities, in three key business sectors (corporate management, supply chain, and stock markets).
Table 8. The items of the proposed sequence “BCA functionalities → Issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities → Implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlook”.
Table 8. The items of the proposed sequence “BCA functionalities → Issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities → Implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlook”.
Implications, Theoretical Contributions, Questions, Potentiality, and OutlookIssues, Risks, Limitations, and OpportunitiesFinancial Variables Operated as BCA Functionalities
Capital-intensive investment deters most companies from adopting BCTHigh implementation cost
(e.g., memory cost)
Faithfulness
DecentralizationTransfer and storage of highly sensitive dataFidelity
ScalabilityEnhance sustainability efforts by improving tracking and verifying emissionsTransparency
Track carbon balances and other environmental metricSkill gapsTrust
AuditabilitySecurity risksPerformance
Holding companies accountable for their sustainability claimsPerformance-related limitationsIntegrity
How to protect data subjects against data harm (privacy breach, exploitation, disempowerment)Integration-related issues with another company’s unitsTraceability–Accountability
Data privacy Loyalty
Trust among users Commitment
Governance and internal control Privacy
Direct peer-to-peer transactions via cryptocurrencies eliminate middlemen and reduce transaction time Anonymity
Harmonizing the innovative BCT spirit with the pragmatic needs of financial governance. Nevertheless, increased regulations could suppress innovation, leading to less dynamic BCA. Security

5.6.1. First Layer of the Proposed SLR Research Sequence (RQ1: What Are the Financial Variables (BCA Functionalities) of Present BCA/FinTech Applications and Their Implications in a Particular Business Sector?)

CM: Six (6) financial variables, operated as BCA functionalities for corporate management, are produced: loyalty, commitment, faithfulness, integrity, trust, and traceability–accountability (Figure 10: top left).
SC: Five (5) financial variables, operated as BCA functionalities for the supply chain, are produced: loyalty, commitment, faithfulness, traceability–accountability, and fidelity (Figure 10: top right).
BI: Five (5) financial variables, operated as BCA functionalities for the banking industry, are produced: transparency, (efficient, scalable, and durable) performance, anonymity, security, and privacy (Figure 10: bottom left).
SM: Four (4) financial variables, operated as BCA functionalities for the stock markets, are produced: commitment, faithfulness, trust, and fidelity (Figure 10: bottom right).
Figure 10. The first layer of the proposed SLR research sequence (RQ1)—pie chart graphical format.
Figure 10. The first layer of the proposed SLR research sequence (RQ1)—pie chart graphical format.
Digital 04 00039 g010

5.6.2. Second Layer of the Proposed SLR Research Sequence (RQ2: What Are the Issues and Opportunities Associated with Financial Variables Operated as BCA Functionalities in a Particular Business Sector?)

CM: Four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities for corporate management are produced: security risks, skill gaps, integrated-related issues, and performance-related limitations (Figure 11: top left).
SC: Four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities for the supply chain are produced: security risks, enhanced sustainability efforts, the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data, and high implementation costs (Figure 11: top right).
BI: Five (5) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities for the banking industry are produced: enhanced sustainability efforts, performance-related limitations, skill gaps, security risks, and the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data (Figure 11: bottom left).
SM: Four (4) issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities for the stock markets are produced: integration-related issues, performance-related limitations, the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data, and security risks (Figure 11: bottom right).
Figure 11. The second layer of the proposed SLR research sequence (RQ2)—pie chart graphical format.
Figure 11. The second layer of the proposed SLR research sequence (RQ2)—pie chart graphical format.
Digital 04 00039 g011aDigital 04 00039 g011b

5.6.3. Third Layer of the Proposed SLR Research Sequence (RQ3: What Are the Implications, Theoretical Contributions (Hypotheses, Propositions, Etc.), Questions, Potentiality, and Outlook of BCA/FinTech Issues, Risks, Limitations, and Opportunities in a Particular Business Sector?)

CM: Five (5) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlooks are produced (RQ3): how to protect data subjects against data harm, governance and internal control, auditability, direct peer-to-peer transactions via cryptocurrencies eliminating middlemen and reducing transaction time, and scalability (Figure 12: top left).
SC: Four (4) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlooks are produced (RQ3): data privacy, harmonizing innovation BCT spirit, trust among users, and decentralization (Figure 12: top right).
BI: Three (3) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlooks are produced (RQ3): capital-intensive investments, holding companies accountable for their sustainability claims, and track carbon balances and other environmental metrics (Figure 12: bottom left).
SM: Three (3) implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlooks are produced (RQ3): how to protect data subjects against data harm, direct peer-to-peer transactions via cryptocurrencies eliminating middlemen and reducing transaction time, and data privacy (Figure 12: bottom right).
Figure 12. The third layer of the proposed SLR research sequence (RQ3)—pie chart graphical format.
Figure 12. The third layer of the proposed SLR research sequence (RQ3)—pie chart graphical format.
Digital 04 00039 g012aDigital 04 00039 g012b

5.7. Statistics

Analyzing the SLR derivative information from Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5, content classification information (see Table 9 and Figure 13), and spatial–temporal evolution information (see Table 10 and Figure 14) are produced as integrated accumulated knowledge.

5.7.1. Content Classification Statistics

An academic content classification analysis, using as an organizing framework the customized PRISMA-adapted protocol, was conducted to quantify content in the academic literature based on the defined inclusion/exclusion criteria (i.e., the six BCA/FinTech application areas, the eight assumptions/SLR key findings, and the 12 financial variables).
The results of this content classification analysis are presented in Table 9 and Figure 13.
Table 9. Percentage (%) per continent/country of the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech (data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Table 9. Percentage (%) per continent/country of the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech (data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Continent or CountryBCA/FinTech Sectors (Application Domain Areas)
Corporate ManagementSupply ChainBanking IndustryStock MarketsMean
(7 Most Cited Articles in BCA/FinTech)
USA28.57%28.57%14.29%21.43%23.21%
Europe---14.29%14.29%14.29%10.72%
China (PRC)28.57%---14.29%14.29%14.29%
Asia28.57%42.85%42.84%35.70%37.49%
Canada14.29%14.29%14.29%14.29%14.29%
100%100%100%100%100%
Figure 13. Percentage (%) per continent/country of the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech (data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Figure 13. Percentage (%) per continent/country of the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech (data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Digital 04 00039 g013
  • Comments
The most cited papers (37.5%) were written by researchers at Asian universities and research centers, as Table 9 and Figure 13 demonstrate. Furthermore, the P.R. of China accounts for nearly 52% of Asian contribution; that is, more than one out of every two Asian papers that have the biggest influence on the BCA/FinTech field originates from China!

5.7.2. Spatial–Temporal Evolution Statistics

After running a spatial–temporal evolution analysis on data presented in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 data (28 most cited articles), the temporal evolution of increased citations from 2014 to 2022 for the seven most referenced publications is displayed in Table 10 and highlighted with a bar graph in Figure 14.
Table 10. Temporal evolution of increasing citations, for the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech ecosystem (data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Table 10. Temporal evolution of increasing citations, for the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech ecosystem (data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
BCA/FinTech
Application Sectors
CommentsNo. of Papers from the Seven Most Cited Articles on BCA/FinTech
Stock MarketsIncremental linear growth013030000
Banking IndustryStable citing growth002021002
Supply Chain.Incremental non-linear growth002122000
Corporate ManagementIncremental linear growth102121000
201420152016201720182019202020212022
Figure 14. The temporal evolution of increasing citations, for the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech ecosystem (data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Figure 14. The temporal evolution of increasing citations, for the seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech ecosystem (data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Digital 04 00039 g014
  • Comments
The two years with the highest citation rates were 2016 (30.95%; 13 of the 42 articles) and 2018 (35.71%; 15 of the 42 articles), indicating the significance of this field of research for the period 2016–2018.
Moreover, there were no published papers in 2020 or 2021, most likely as a result of the COVID-19 unrest that impacted academic and research communities.

6. Discussion

An essential component of scientific study is reviewing articles, sometimes known as literature reviews. Although there are many guides available on literature reviews, they are frequently restricted to the nomenclature, protocols, and philosophy of review procedures, which leads to non-parsimonious reporting and confusion because of overlapping similarities [13,46,56].
A practical PRISMA-adapted approach (protocol) was introduced to demystify and shape the academic practice of conducting literature reviews to address the aforementioned limitations [57,58]. The types, foci, considerations, techniques, and contributions of literature reviews as stand-alone, autonomous studies were the main topics of this tailored protocol [46,57].
Understanding literature reviews as independent studies is essentially (i) necessary to address issues and problems raised earlier; (ii) vital to counterbalance and strengthen our understanding; and (iii) relevant and appropriate considering the increasing number of literature reviews conducted as independent studies [13,56,57,58].
The paper proposes an SLR to document the present applications, and their implications, issues, and future outlook of the corporate BCA for disrupting FinTech functionalities. Further, it highlights the challenges and opportunities associated with the BCA in different business and finance areas as a “three research questions SLR discussion” related to four business sectors and financial functions.
The raw data were collected from extended bibliographic and literature research regarding corporate blockchain adoption for disrupting financial technology functionalities, with regard to four business and financial functions (corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets) [67]. After SLR projection and academic content filtering with particular inclusion/exclusion criteria, six key findings were recorded that should be regarded as self-judging assumptions [58,69,70].
From these six key findings, the first (“Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness”) and second (“Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.”) shows functional presence in all four business sectors and financial functions of the BCA/FinTech application domain (see Table 5).
Furthermore, the third key finding (“Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services”), and the sixth assumption (“By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities”) shows functional presence in three business sectors and financial functions of the BCA/FinTech application domain (see Table 5).
Additionally, the business sectors, of the selected BCA/FinTech application domain, “Corporate management”, and “Supply chain” appear to have the highest assumption acceptance rate, with five out of the six key findings, i.e., an assumption acceptance rate of 83%.
From the six key findings, 12 financial variables operated as BCA functionalities have been produced. In corporate management, BCA has a significant positive effect on 11 out of the 12 financial variables. In the supply chain sector, BCA has a significant positive effect on 7 out of the 12 financial variables. In the banking industry, BCA has a significant positive effect on 10 out of the 12 financial variables, and in the stock market sector, BCA has a significant positive effect on 10 out of the 12 financial variables. The financial variables faithfulness, trust, loyalty, and commitment appear to be supported by BCA in all four key business sectors (see Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8 and Figure 10, Figure 11 and Figure 12).
Although the data from Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 are produced from self-judging inclusion and exclusion criteria and the six self-arguing assumptions, the proposed SLR method provides solid pieces of evidence for logical arguments. Hence, 37.5% of the most cited papers were written by researchers at Asian universities and research centers, as Table 9 and Figure 13 demonstrate. Furthermore, China accounts for 53.8% of Asian papers; that is, more than one out of every two Asian papers that have the biggest influence on the BCA/FinTech field originates from China!
Additionally, as Table 10 and Figure 14 display, the two years with the highest citation rates were 2016 and 2018 with 9 of the 28 top-cited articles (i.e., 32.14%) per year and 10,968 (38.88%) and 7797 (27.57%) accumulated citations, respectively. Moreover, there were no published papers in 2020 or 2021, most likely because of the COVID-19 unrest that impacted the academic and research communities.
As theoretical contributions of the proposed study, the following have been discussed in the RQ3 commentary: how to protect data subjects against data harm (from security risks and skill gap issues), data privacy (from security risks and the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data issues), harmonizing the innovation BCT spirit with pragmatic needs of financial governance (from integration-related issues with another company’s units, and performance-related limitations), trust among users (from the transfer and storage of highly sensitive data risks), holding companies accountable for their sustainability claims (from enhanced sustainability efforts by improving tracking and verifying emissions opportunities), track carbon balances and other environmental metrics (from enhanced sustainability efforts by improving tracking and verifying emissions opportunities), and decentralization (from performance-related limitations).
Finally, as practical implications, the following have been discussed in the RQ3 commentary: governance and internal control (from security risks and integration-related issues with another company’s units), auditability (from skill gap limitations), direct peer-to-peer transactions via cryptocurrencies eliminating middlemen and reducing transaction time (from skill gaps and performance-related limitations), and scalability (from performance-related limitations).
This study combined an SLR with qualitative analysis as part of a hybrid research approach. Quantitative analysis was carried out on all 835 selected papers in the first step, and qualitative analysis was carried out on the top-cited studies that were screened. The current work highlights the key challenges and opportunities in established blockchain implementations and discusses the outlook potentiality of blockchain technology adoption. This study will be useful to managers and practitioners, as well as to researchers and scholars.
This study suggests a methodical research framework based on the findings above, and even though the use of BCA in resolving business and financial issues is growing, more research is still needed on this topic as it is still in its early stages.

7. Conclusions

The most crucial keywords for this article were “blockchain technology adoption” and “business sectors”. “Document type” was set to “Article or Proceeding article”. Ultimately, 318 papers were screened through the Web of Science, Scopus, and MDPI open-access databases. In particular, a hybrid research approach combining qualitative analysis and SLR was applied in this study. First, all 835 chosen papers were subjected to quantitative analysis. Next, the highly cited papers that passed the screening were subjected to qualitative analysis. Drawing from the aforementioned study, this paper suggests a methodical research framework.
The following are the main contributions of this review. First, business application scenarios, blockchain technology, and BCA concerns are all included in the suggested framework. This methodology offers valuable insights for business practitioners to reevaluate their economic challenges and explore the potential of using blockchain technology to address them. Second, this work suggests several areas for future research. We think that by following these recommendations, business professionals, corporate managers, and blockchain technology specialists may collaborate and significantly impact the business world.
The purpose of this study was to provide an extensive and current organized state-of-the-art scientific understanding of the relationship between BCA and four business sectors. A thorough examination of the conceptual framework of the papers is provided since mapping the scientific output that links BCA functionalities and FinTech was the primary goal.
Reviews of the literature progress scholarly discourse and journal articles covering a wide range of subjects and themes are appearing increasingly frequently. Literature reviews will become even more necessary because of this tendency. Three distinct stakeholder groups are addressed by the guidelines and control points provided in this article: producers (i.e., potential authors), evaluators (i.e., journal editors and reviewers), and users (i.e., novice researchers seeking to expand their knowledge on a specific methodological issue and those instructing the following generation of scholars).
In this study, via bibliographic quality research and qualitative review of applications, implications, challenges, opportunities, and outlook potentiality, we have investigated the corporate BCA for disrupting FinTech functionalities and its influence in four corporate business and financial functions (corporate management, supply chain, banking industry, and stock markets).
The bibliographic study found that BCA has been applied widely in companies and enterprises with a positive FinTech attitude.

7.1. Results and Accomplishments

The results show that BCA can support businesses with a disruptive FinTech mentality by providing knowledge, same-data, and information sharing; enhancing fidelity, integrity, and trust; enhancing organizational procedures; and preventing fraud through the prevention of cyber-hacking and the suspension of fraudulence. Furthermore, the use of smart contracts in blockchain technology provides ESG and sustainability features. Ultimately, BCA will improve security, visibility, and transparency, and reduce costs across the board in the business process within a FinTech ecosystem.
Additionally, the main accomplishments in the existing literature are (i) the recording of BCA/FinTech corporate data (as primitive first-level raw data) organized as six true key findings (assumptions) related to BCA, as it is projected to be a disrupting FinTech corporate environment; and (ii) the conclusions from derivative-quality information from these primitive data, the six certain-to-happen assumptions (key findings), and the four business sectors and financial functions (BCA/FinTech application areas) presented in tabular form (see Table 8).
As was previously mentioned, it is critical to foster uniqueness in business and management practice research. In addition to assisting safe mining practices, academics should be pushed to take on more difficult and dangerous projects. It is crucial to remember that abstracts frequently give the impression that they have a lot of promise since they indicate that the writers hope to significantly advance the field’s conceptual understanding.

7.2. Findings and Practical Applications

This study’s findings are the following: the 6 key findings; the 12 financial variables operated as BCA functionalities and produced from the key findings (RQ1); the 7 issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities associated with the financial variables (RQ2); and the 12 theoretical and practical contributions (RQ3).
Important takeaways from our text are also applicable to practitioners. Notably, our methodology can assist business managers in breaking down and comprehending literature evaluations as sporadic, stand-alone investigations into subjects that are important to their company. Practitioners, for example, find it easier to understand new developments in their area of expertise and to align company actions with these trends.
The study will be useful to practitioners (ESG activities, DEI initiatives, knowledge sharing), the banking industry (smart contracts utilization, transparency, credit corruption, information sharing, and cyber-hacking protection), stock markets (transparency, same data sharing, and fidelity-integrity-trust), and corporate management (smart contracts, effective supply chain tracking, visibility for credit corruption and information sharing, security enhancement, and cost reduction/wealth maximization).
Particularly, for scholars and researchers, the study will help them conduct FinTech interdisciplinary research based on a disrupting cost/benefit analysis for a blockchain adoption policy in corporate management.

7.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The state-of-the-art framework presented in this research encompasses the complete framework utilized in the sample papers, making it incredibly significant for the literature. As a result, it offers the scientific community a detailed and understandable guide on how the literature examined the connection between blockchain technology adoption and the four business sectors.
This illustrates how management, ESG, DEI, and business ethics are integrated, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of corporate behavior. The present study’s results corroborate established ideas that link business ethics and duties to corporate performance, implying that aggressive FinTech strategies may compromise corporate social responsibility initiatives.
This article provides businesses with a useful resource on the BCA/CSR area. Businesses should disclose their financial results to give their plan legitimacy, support their CSR stance, and foster positive connections with all of their stakeholders. Lastly, this article is helpful to policymakers since it discloses the tactics used by businesses for BCA while simultaneously establishing their social responsibility. The lessons this paper imparts on the various essential components and methodological subtleties of literature reviews will be valuable to future producers. Implications are related to low-cost, error-free, and faster transaction benefits. Also helpful will be procedural expertise, such as how to employ control points to help with decision-making during the manuscript creation process. The procedural and declarative knowledge that is visible in control points will also be useful to evaluators.

7.4. Contributions

The literature from 2013 to 2023 on “blockchain technology adoption in four business sectors” was reviewed in this study. This study thoroughly searched and examined the research in the area of “blockchain in business” using the SLR methodology.

7.4.1. Theoretical Contributions

The current literature review on blockchain technology is mostly concerned with the technology itself, with little attention paid to how blockchain technology might increase the business value of organizations, and with its experimental applications in various industries. Furthermore, quantitative research on how blockchain technology adds value to business strategies, business procedures, and business models from many subject perspectives is absent from the present review literature.
Through the use of the SLR methodology, this study adds to the body of knowledge on blockchain technology by integrating the most recent advancements in practice and research on blockchain technology and its applications.
By constructing a three-layer research framework (“financial variables operated as BCA functionalities” → “issues, risks, limitations, and opportunities” associated with the financial variables → “implications, theoretical contributions, questions, potentiality, and outlook” of BCA/FinTech issues), this study lists BCA applications in the banking sector, stock markets, supply chain, and corporate management used to generate business value. Based on these findings, a model based on financial factors was developed. By altering corporate strategies, company processes, and business models, this research adds to our understanding of how blockchain technology impacts businesses and individuals. It also creates value for the business community.
Building trust, decentralized governance, and enhanced transaction efficiency are anticipated benefits that blockchain offers as a unique value delivery architecture. However, there are still unanswered questions about how businesses, people, and technology interact to create successful commercial ventures. The results of this study provide a three-layer value creation model for disruptive, creative, and revolutionary innovations in business models, which helps close these knowledge gaps.

7.4.2. Practical Contributions

This research informs practice in the following ways. First, while blockchain is an emerging technology that offers numerous opportunities for meaningful commercial applications, contemporary applications of blockchain are still experimental. Therefore, this study provides an overview of the mainstream protocols and corresponding permission, trust, encryption, and consensus mechanisms that have emerged with the advancement of blockchain technology. For business models, business processes, and business strategies, we further provide rich business operations detailing how organizations and individuals create and capture business value.
More specifically, as we reveal in our research question, the value of blockchain technology can occur in the interaction of three subjects, namely transactions between organizations and individuals (including organizations and organizations, individuals and individuals); the organizational adoption of technology; and the individual adoption of technology. In this sense, the results of this study may help practitioners already operating in the field or intending to venture into the field to gain a comprehensive understanding of the current blockchain ecosystem. This, in turn, helps detect unmet market needs that are best met by offering new blockchain business operations.
By examining “Blockchain in Business”, this paper opens up a business perspective to the technology-driven blockchain technology literature, enhancing understanding of important aspects of the blockchain business model. The research framework proposed in this study can also serve as a tool for business model innovation. Practitioners can use the research framework and models within this review to assess opportunities and barriers to integrating blockchain technology into their current business models. The SLR method adopted in this study can inspire practitioners to innovate business models, allow managers to discover opportunities for business model innovation, and provide blockchain technology-specific support for business model innovation.
By linking technology and applications with economic problems, we provide a map for practitioners to rethink the problems they face and which type of economic problems they belong to and find the possibility of applying blockchain technology to solve the problems.
In addition, based on that, we provide future research topics (discussed in detail in Section 5.2). We believe the future directions provided by this paper are helpful for both researchers and practitioners.

7.5. Limitations and Recommendations

It should be mentioned that using particular search phrases limited this study. It would be advantageous to broaden the analysis to incorporate articles from journals listed in additional worldwide databases, such as EBSCO, ProQuest, Index Copernicus, EconLit, Cabells Journalytics, Ulrich’s, DOAJ, etc.
The study, being self-judging (inclusion/exclusion criteria) and self-arguing (assumption-based key findings) and qualitative in nature, is based on a review of BCT/Fintech literature and is therefore not free from publication, statistical, sample selection, and self-arguing bias. Furthermore, the selected academic content refers to a relatively small number of cited papers (the seven most cited). It does not integrates and presents a complete corporate blockchain adoption framework or a disrupting FinTech model.
According to the findings and limitations, as discussed in RQ3’s comments, harmonizing the innovative BCT spirit with the current “real” needs of financial governance is a future direction. But increased regulations could suppress innovation, leading to a less dynamic BCA (BCA functionalities).
Scholars and researchers could conduct further studies covering sustainability (ESG) and diversity/equity/inclusion (DEI) issues, monetary measurement of transparency, security issues, same-data, and information sharing, cost/benefits, revenue, profit, and investment related to different areas of blockchain and business. This would further help researchers, managers, and practitioners in blockchain applications in business and finance to understand the role of blockchain technology adoption in corporate management with a positive FinTech attitude.
To encourage more clarity regarding BCA functionalities for the four business sectors (discussed as independent SLR projects in this article), it would be worthwhile to look into the relationship between these sectors. Finally, since financial statements and sustainability reports are not typically employed for these kinds of SLR studies, future research may use them as data-gathering strategies.

7.6. Future Research Directions

Three research directions for further SLR investigation are suggested. Initially, blockchain holds immense promise for exchanging and storing information. With the increased usage of the internet and the explosion of big data, an increasing amount of data are being exchanged and stored digitally. How can information exchange be secured against privacy breaches? How can data be safely and affordably stored? What are some ways to convey knowledge more quickly without losing it? Across numerous departments and industries, managers and practitioners are concerned with these questions. Therefore, further research can be conducted on the following topics: (i) Which department or industry can blockchain transform? (ii) How does deploying blockchain affect costs, benefits, and obstacles? (iii) How are adopters of blockchain technology, their partners, and rivals affected? and (iv) How can the adoption of blockchain be assessed?
Second, blockchain can be used as a helpful governance tool to improve openness and lessen fraud and distortion. Since there are governance issues in every economy, researchers can investigate the many application scenarios in more detail. (a) What obstacles need to be removed in order for blockchain technology to be applied to improve various tiers of governance? (b) If blockchain is used, how may it improve intra-organization governance? (c) Can blockchain be used, and if so, how can it be used to improve public scrutiny of public officials or the government?
Thirdly, consensus generation has been less studied in the past, and most studies in this stream only emphasize the removal of a central authority and its benefits. Although K. Christidis and M. Devetsikiotis [15] proved the role of blockchain in smart contracts, mitigating information asymmetry, and IoT competition theoretically, there is not much empirical evidence for increasing market size.
In conclusion, we advocate for empirical investigations utilizing SLR to enhance our comprehension of decentralized systems, namely distributed ledger technologies (DLTs). We further urge scholars to investigate the question of when collusion occurs in a decentralized system and how corporate management may prevent such scenarios. More application scenarios (such as those in agriculture, services, and pharmacy) should also be investigated because they are the industries most likely to see the emergence of disruptive business models.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.B.; methodology, V.B.; software, V.B. and H.P.; validation, V.B. and H.P.; formal analysis, V.B.; investigation, V.B.; resources, V.B.; data curation, V.B.; writing—original draft preparation, V.B.; writing—review and editing, V.B.; visualization, V.B.; supervision, H.P.; and project administration, H.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in the study are available on open-access journal article databases (Web of Science, Scopus, MDPI, and DOAJ) and the freely accessible web search engine Google Scholar.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support of the Department of Balkan, Slavic & Oriental Studies/University of Macedonia (Greece).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Morkunas, V.J.; Paschen, J.; Boon, E. How blockchain technologies impact your business model. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Chang, V.; Baudier, P.; Zhang, H.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, J.; Arami, M. How Blockchain can impact financial services—The overview, challenges and recommendations from expert interviewees. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 158, 120166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Varveris, D.; Styliadis, A.; Xofis, P.; Dimen, L. Tree Architecture & Blockchain Integration: An off-the-shelf Experimental Approach. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2023, 19, 969–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Varveris, D.; Styliadis, A.; Xofis, P.; Dimen, L. Distributed and Collaborative Tree Architecture: A Low-cost Experimental Approach for Smart Forest Monitoring. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023, 11, 653–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tsitouras, A.; Papapanagos, H. Income Inequality, Economic Freedom, and Economic Growth in Greece: A Multivariate Analysis. In Advances in Empirical Economic Research, 2023, ICOAE 2022; Tsounis, N., Vlachvei, A., Eds.; Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ramli, F.A.A.; Hamzah, M.I.; Wahab, S.N.; Shekhar, R. Modeling the Brand Equity and Usage Intention of QR-Code E-Wallets. FinTech 2023, 2, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bühler, M.M.; Calzada, I.; Cane, I.; Jelinek, T.; Kapoor, A.; Mannan, M.; Mehta, S.; Mookerje, V.; Nübel, K.; Pentland, A.; et al. Unlocking the Power of Digital Commons: Data Cooperatives as a Pathway for Data Sovereign, Innovative and Equitable Digital Communities. Digital 2023, 3, 146–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Anita, D.; Bhappu, T.L.; Yeo, M.L. Platform Service Designs: A Comparative Case Analysis of Technology Features, Affordances, and Constraints for Ridesharin. Digital 2022, 2, 320–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. Empirical Model for Estimating Sustainable Entrepreneurship’s Growth Potential and Positive Outlook. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023, 11, 181–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. The Use of DEA for ESG Activities and DEI Initiatives Considered as “Pillar of Sustainability” for Economic Growth Assessment in Western Balkans. Digital 2024, 4, 572–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Basdekidou, V.A.; Papapanagos, H. The mediating role of the corporate culture in the relationship between Blockchain adoption and ESG performance. SSRN J. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Khan, N.; Zafar, M.; Okunlola, A.F.; Zoltan, Z.; Robert, M. Effects of Financial Inclusion on Economic Growth, Poverty, Sustainability, and Financial Efficiency: Evidence from the G20 Countries. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mohammad, A.; Chirchir, B. Challenges of Integrating Artificial Intelligence in Software Project Planning: A Systematic Literature Review. Digital 2024, 4, 555–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Salcedo, E.; Gupta, M. The effects of individual-level espoused national cultural values on the willingness to use Bitcoin-like blockchain currencies. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 60, 102388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Christidis, K.; Devetsikiotis, M. Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 2292–2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Congress on Big Data (BigData Congress), Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 June 2017; pp. 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Renduchintala, T.; Alfauri, H.; Yang, Z.; Pietro, R.D.; Jain, R. A Survey of Blockchain Applications in the FinTech Sector. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zheng, Z.; Xie, S.; Dai, H.-N.; Chen, X.; Wang, H. Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. Int. J. Web Grid Serv. 2018, 14, 352–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pal, A.; Tiwari, C.K.; Haldar, N. Blockchain for business management: Applications, challenges and potentials. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2021, 32, 100414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saheb, T.; Mamaghani, F.H. Exploring the barriers and organizational values of blockchain adoption in the banking industry. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2021, 32, 100417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Su, F.; Xu, C. Curbing credit corruption in China: The role of FinTech. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023, 8, 100292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zheng, K.; Zheng, L.J.; Gauthier, J.; Zhou, L.; Xu, Y.; Behl, A.; Zhang, J.Z. Blockchain technology for enterprise credit information sharing in supply chain finance. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. UN. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 23 January 2024).
  24. Basdekidou, C.; Styliadis, A.D.; Argyriadis, A.; Dimen, L. A Low-cost Feasibility Training Study for DCD Children’s Perceptual-motor Therapy. Balt. J. Mod. Comput. 2023, 11, 726–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Li, Y.; Zhao, T. How Digital Transformation Enables Corporate Sustainability: Based on the Internal and External Efficiency Improvement Perspective. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lee, C.-W.; Fu, M.-W. Conceptualizing Sustainable Business Models Aligning with Corporate Responsibility. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Huang, L.; Liu, Q. The Impact of Natural Disasters on Corporate ESG Performance: Evidence from China. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Casteleiro-Pitrez, J. Generative Artificial Intelligence Image Tools among Future Designers: A Usability, User Experience, and Emotional Analysis. Digital 2024, 4, 316–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mohammad, A.; Abbas, Y. Key Challenges of Cloud Computing Resource Allocation in Small and Medium Enterprises. Digital 2024, 4, 372–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liyanaarachchi, G.; Viglia, G.; Kurtaliqi, F. Addressing challenges of digital transformation with modified blockchain. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024, 201, 123254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zheng, C. An innovative MS-VAR model with integrated financial knowledge for measuring the impact of stock market bubbles on financial security. J. Innov. Knowl. 2022, 7, 100207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sanda, O.; Pavlidis, M.; Polatidis, N. A Regulatory Readiness Assessment Framework for Blockchain Adoption in Healthcare. Digital 2022, 2, 65–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Masoud, R.; Basahel, S. The Effects of Digital Transformation on Firm Performance: The Role of Customer Experience and IT Innovation. Digital 2023, 3, 109–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Deuber, D.; Gruber, J.; Humml, M.; Ronge, V.; Scheler, N. Argumentation Schemes for Blockchain Deanonymisation. FinTech 2024, 3, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kus Khalilov, M.C.; Levi, A. A Survey on Anonymity and Privacy in Bitcoin-Like Digital Cash Systems. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018, 20, 2543–2585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. The Bitcoin Project. Bitcoin Developer Guide-Wallets. 2024. Available online: https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/wallets.html (accessed on 14 March 2024).
  37. Eyal, I.; Sirer, E.G. Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security: FC 2014; Christin, N., Safavi-Naini, R., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; Volume 8437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kosba, A.; Miller, A.; Shi, E.; Wen, Z.; Papamanthou, C. Hawk: The Blockchain Model of Cryptography and Privacy-Preserving Smart Contracts. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Jose, CA, USA, 22–26 May 2016; pp. 839–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yli-Huumo, J.; Ko, D.; Choi, S.; Park, S.; Smolander, K. Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Luu, L.; Chu, D.-H.; Olickel, H.; Saxena, P.; Hobor, A. Making Smart Contracts Smarter. In CCS ‘16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 254–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Khan, M.A.; Salah, K. IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2018, 82, 395–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Agbo, C.C.; Mahmoud, Q.H.; Eklund, J.M. Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review. Healthcare 2019, 7, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jena, R.K. Examining the Factors Affecting the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Banking Sector: An Extended UTAUT Model. Int. J. Financ. Stud. 2022, 10, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alcarria, R.; Bordel, B.; Robles, T.; Martín, D.; Manso-Callejo, M.-Á. A Blockchain-Based Authorization System for Trustworthy Resource Monitoring and Trading in Smart Communities. Sensors 2018, 18, 3561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Azzi, R.; Chamoun, R.K.; Sokhn, M. The power of a blockchain-based supply chain. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 135, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dissanayake, H.; Popescu, C.; Iddagoda, A. A Bibliometric Analysis of Financial Technology: Unveiling the Research Landscape. FinTech 2023, 2, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chong, T.T.L.; Wu, Y.; Su, J. The Unusual Trading Volume and Earnings Surprises in China’s Market. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020, 13, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kao, Y.-C.; Shen, K.-Y.; Lee, S.-T.; Shieh, J.C.P. Selecting the Fintech Strategy for Supply Chain Finance: A Hybrid Decision Approach for Banks. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yogarajan, L.; Masukujjaman, M.; Ali, M.H.; Khalid, N.; Osman, L.H.; Alam, S.S. Exploring the Hype of Blockchain Adoption in Agri-Food Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Guo, Y.; Liang, C. Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry. Financ. Innov. 2016, 2, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chiu, J.; Koeppl, T.V. Blockchain-Based Settlement for Asset Trading, Bank of Canada Staff Working Paper, No. 2018-45, Bank of Canada, Ottawa. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gervais, A.; Karame, G.O.; Wüst, K.; Glykantzis, V.; Ritzdorf, H.; Capkun, S. On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains. In CCS ‘16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. UN. United Nations Millennium Declaration. General Assembly. 2000. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_55_2.pdf (accessed on 6 January 2024).
  54. Li, Z.F.; Lu, X.; Wang, J. Corporate Social Responsibility and Goodwill Impairment: Charitable Donations of Chinese Listed Companies. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Filip, A.; Lobo, G.J.; Paugam, L. Managerial discretion to delay the recognition of goodwill impairment: The role of enforcement. J. Bus. Financ. Account. 2021, 48, 36–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kraus, S.; Breier, M.; Lim, W.M.; Dabić, M.; Kumar, S.; Kanbach, D.; Mukherjee, D.; Corvello, V.; Piñeiro-Chousa, J.; Liguori, E.; et al. Literature reviews as independent studies: Guidelines for academic practice. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022, 16, 2577–2595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lim, W.M.; Kumar, S.; Ali, F. Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘What’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. Serv. Ind. J. 2022, 42, 481–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Khan, K.S.; Kunz, R.; Kleijnen, J.; Antes, G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J. R. Soc. Med. 2003, 96, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Unal, I.M.; Aysan, A.F. Fintech, Digitalization, and Blockchain in Islamic Finance: Retrospective Investigation. FinTech 2022, 1, 388–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Basdekidou, V.; Styliadou, A.A. Corporate Social Responsibility & Market Volatility: Relationship and Trading Opportunities. Int. Bus. Res. 2017, 10, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Basdekidou, V.; Styliadou, A.A. Corporate Social Responsibility Performance & ETF Historical Market Volatility. Int. J. Econ. Financ. 2017, 6, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hasanagas, N.D.; Styliadis, A.D.; Papadopoulou, E.I. Environmental policy and science management: Using a scientometric-specific GIS for E-learning purposes. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2010, 5, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hasanagas, N.D.; Styliadis, A.D.; Papadopoulou, E.I.; Sechidis, L.A. E-Learning & environmental policy: The case of a politico-administrative GIS. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control 2010, 5, 517–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Varma, P.; Nijjer, S.; Sood, K.; Grima, S.; Rupeika-Apoga, R. Thematic Analysis of Financial Technology (Fintech) Influence on the Banking Industry. Risks 2022, 10, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tsang, K.K.; Teng, Y.; Lian, Y.; Wang, L. School management culture, emotional labor, and teacher burnout in Mainland China. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Zyskind, G.; Nathan, O.; Pentland, A. Decentralizing Privacy: Using Blockchain to Protect Personal Data. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops, San Jose, CA, USA, 21–22 May 2015; pp. 180–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. United States District Court for the Central District of California. Criminal Complaint-United States of America v. Tibo Lousee, Klaus-Martin Frost, and Jonathan Kalla-Case No. 19MJ1843. 2019. Available online: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1159706/download (accessed on 14 March 2024).
  69. Grewal, D.; Puccinelli, N.; Monroe, K.B. Meta-analysis: Integrating accumulated knowledge. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2018, 46, 9–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Budde, L.; Benninghaus, C.; Hänggi, R.; Friedli, T. Managerial Practices for the Digital Transformation of Manufacturers. Digital 2022, 2, 463–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Erboz, G.; Abbas, H.; Nosratabadi, S. Investigating supply chain research trends amid COVID-19: A bibliometric analysis. Manag. Res. Rev. 2023, 46, 413–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Nosratabadi, S.; Zahed, R.K.; Ponkratov, V.V.; Kostyrin, E.V. Artificial Intelligence Models and Employee Lifecycle Management: A systematic Literature Review. Organizacija 2022, 55, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nelaturu, K.; Du, H.; Le, D.-P. A Review of Blockchain in Fintech: Taxonomy, Challenges, and Future Directions. Cryptography 2022, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kountios, G.; Kanakaris, S.; Moulogianni, C.; Bournaris, T. Strengthening AKIS for Sustainable Agricultural Features: Insights and Innovations from the European Union: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sandra, K.-A.; Cevers, A.; Kovalenko, A.; Auzins, A. Challenges for Customs Risk Management Today: A Literature Review. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2024, 17, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bortey, L.; Edwards, D.J.; Roberts, C.; Rillie, I. A Review of Safety Risk Theories and Models and the Development of a Digital Highway Construction Safety Risk Model. Digital 2022, 2, 206–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sun, Y.; Jiang, S.; Jia, W.; Wang, Y. Blockchain as a cutting-edge technology impacting business: A systematic literature review perspective. Telecommun. Policy 2022, 46, 102443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sadman, N.; Ahsan, M.M.; Rahman, A.; Siddique, Z.; Gupta, K.D. Promise of AI in DeFi, a Systematic Review. Digital 2022, 2, 88–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bhowmik, K.; Ralescu, A. Leveraging Vector Space Similarity for Learning Cross-Lingual Word Embeddings: A Systematic Review. Digital 2021, 1, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nwaiwu, F. Review and Comparison of Conceptual Frameworks on Digital Business Transformation. J. Compet. 2018, 10, 86–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hess, T.; Benlian, A.; Matt, C.; Wiesböck, F. How German Media Companies Defined Their Digital Transformation Strategies. MIS Q. Exec. 2016, 15, 103–119. [Google Scholar]
  83. Reddy, S.K.; Reinartz, W. Digital Transformation and Value Creation: Sea Change Ahead. Mark. Intell. Rev. 2017, 9, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Reinartz, W.; Wiegand, N.; Imschloss, M. The Impact of Digital Transformation on the Retailing Value Chain. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2019, 36, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Vaska, S.; Massaro, M.; Bagarotto, E.M.; Dal Mas, F. The Digital Transformation of Business Model Innovation: A Structured Literature Review. Front. Psychol. 2021, 11, 3557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Arjun, R.; Suprabha, K.R. Innovation and Challenges of Blockchain in Banking: A Scientometric View. Int. J. Interact. Multimed. Artif. Intell. 2020, 6, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gao, J.; Wang, H.; Shen, H. Smartly Handling Renewable Energy Instability in Supporting a Cloud Datacenter. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS), New Orleans, LA, USA, 18–22 May 2020; pp. 769–778. [Google Scholar]
  88. Fardbastani, M.A.; Allahdadi, F.; Sharifi, M. Business process monitoring via decentralized complex event processing. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2018, 12, 1257–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Manogaran, G.; Rawal, B.S.; Saravanan, V.; Kumar, P.M.; Martínez, O.S.; Crespo, R.G.; Krishnamoorthy, S. Blockchain-Based Integrated Security Measure for Reliable Service Delegation in 6G Communication Environment. Comput. Commun. 2020, 161, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Filimonau, V.; Naumova, E. The Blockchain Technology and the Scope of Its Application in Hospitality Operations. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Khelifi, H.; Luo, S.; Nour, B.; Moungla, H.; Ahmed, S.H.; Guizani, M. A Blockchain-Based Architecture for Secure VehicularNamed Data Networks. Comput. Electr. Eng. 2020, 86, 106715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Tönnissen, S.; Beinke, J.H.; Teuteberg, F. Understanding Token-Based Ecosystems—A Taxonomy of Blockchain-Based Business Models of Startups. Electron. Mark. 2020, 30, 307–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Nguyen, Q.N.; Sidorova, A.; Torres, R. Artificial Intelligence in Business: A Literature Review and Research Agenda. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2022, 50, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Geissdoerfer, M.; Vladimirova, D.; Evans, S. Sustainable Business Model Innovation: A Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 198, 401–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Clauss, T. Measuring Business Model Innovation: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Proof of Performance. R&D Manag. 2017, 47, 385–403. [Google Scholar]
  96. Moosavi, J.; Naeni, L.M.; Fathollahi-Fard, A.M.; Fiore, U. Blockchain in Supply Chain Management: A Review, Bibliometric, and Network Analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Suša Vugec, D.; Tomicic-Pupek, K.; Vukšic, V.B. Social business process management in practice: Overcoming the limitations of the traditional business process management. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2018, 10, 1847979017750927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Makowski, E.K.; Wu, L.; Gupta, P.; Tessier, P.M. Discovery-Stage Identification of Drug-Like Antibodies Using Emerging Experimental and Computational Methods. MAbs 2021, 13, 1895540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Trischler, M.F.G.; Li-Ying, J. Digital Business Model Innovation: Toward Construct Clarity and Future Research Directions. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2022, 17, 3–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Teece, D.J. Business Models and Dynamic Capabilities. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 40–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Blaschke, M.; Cigaina, M.; Riss, U.V.; Shoshan, I. Designing Business Models for the Digital Economy. In Shaping the Digital Enterprise; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 121–136. [Google Scholar]
  102. Snihur, Y.; Zott, C.; Amit, R. Managing the Value Appropriation Dilemma in Business Model Innovation. Strategy Sci. 2021, 6, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Müller, S.; Hundahl, M. IT-Driven Business Model Innovation: Sources and Ripple Effects. Int. J. E-Bus. Res. 2018, 14, 14–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sjödin, D.; Parida, V.; Jovanovic, M.; Visnjic, I. Value Creation and Value Capture Alignment in Business Model Innovation: A Process View on Outcome-Based Business Models. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2020, 37, 158–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Grieco, C.; Michelini, L.; Iasevoli, G. Which Sharing Are We Betting On? Analyzing the Financial Attractiveness of Sharing Business Models. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 314, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Feng, Q.; He, D.; Zeadally, S.; Khan, M.K.; Kumar, N. A Survey on Privacy Protection in Blockchain System. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2019, 126, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Minatogawa, V.; Franco, M.; Pinto, J.; Batocchio, A. Business Model Innovation Influencing Factors: An Integrative Literature Review. Braz. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 15, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Namasudra, S.; Deka, G.C.; Johri, P.; Hosseinpour, M.; Gandomi, A.H. The revolution of blockchain: State-of-the-art and research challenges. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2021, 28, 1497–1515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zhang, J.; Thomas, C.; FragaLamas, P.; Fernández-Caramés, T. Deploying blockchain technology in the supply chain. In Computer Security Threats; BoD—Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2019; Volume 57. [Google Scholar]
  110. Khalifa, E. Blockchain: Technological Revolution in Business and Administration. Am. J. Manag. 2019, 19, 40–46. [Google Scholar]
  111. Ahmad, L.; Khanji, S.; Iqbal, F.; Kamoun, F. Blockchain-based chain of custody: Towards real-time tamper-proof evidence management. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Virtual Event, 25–28 August 2020; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  112. Rebello, G.A.F.; Camilo, G.F.; Guimaraes, L.C.; de Souza, L.A.C.; Thomaz, G.A.; Duarte, O.C.M. A security and performance analysis of proof-based consensus protocols. Ann. Telecommun. 2021, 77, 517–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Borselli, A. Smart Contracts in Insurance: A Law and Futurology Perspective; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  114. Dutta, P.; Choi, T.-M.; Somani, S.; Butala, R. Blockchain technology in supply chain operations: Applications, challenges and research opportunities. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2020, 142, 102067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wang, Y.; Han, J.H.; Beynon-Davies, P. Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2019, 24, 62–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yang, R.; Wakefield, R.; Lyu, S.; Jayasuriya, S.; Han, F.; Yi, X.; Yang, X.; Amarasinghe, G.; Chen, S. Public and private blockchain in construction business process and information integration. Autom. Constr. 2020, 118, 103276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Bi, Z.; Pungpapong, V. Blockchain and internet of things for modern business process in digital economy—The state of the art. IEEE Trans. Comput. Soc. Syst. 2019, 6, 1420–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Eggers, J.; Hein, A.; Weking, J.; Böhm, M.; Krcmar, H. Process automation on the blockchain: An exploratory case study on smart contracts. In Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA, 5 January 2021. [Google Scholar]
  119. Gayialis, S.P.; Kechagias, E.P.; Papadopoulos, G.A.; Panayiotou, N.A. A Business Process Reference Model for the Development of a Wine Traceability System. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Hameed, K.; Barika, M.; Garg, S.; Amin, M.B.; Kang, B. A taxonomy study on securing Blockchain-based Industrial applications: An overview, application perspectives, requirements, attacks, countermeasures, and open issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2022, 26, 100312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Bi, Z.; Sapsomboon, A. Blockchain-based business process management (BPM) framework for service composition in industry 4.0. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020, 31, 1737–1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Bodkhe, U.; Tanwar, S.; Parekh, K.; Khanpara, P.; Tyagi, S.; Kumar, N.; Alazab, M. Blockchain for industry 4.0: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 79764–79800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Upadhyay, N. Demystifying blockchain: A critical analysis of challenges, applications and opportunities. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ahmad, A.; Saad, M.; Al Ghamdi, M.; Nyang, D.; Mohaisen, D. Blocktrail: A service for secure and transparent blockchain-driven audit trails. IEEE Syst. J. 2021, 16, 1367–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Garg, P.; Gupta, B.; Chauhan, A.K.; Sivarajah, U.; Gupta, S.; Modgil, S. Measuring the perceived benefits of implementing blockchain technology in the banking sector. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 163, 120407. [Google Scholar]
  126. Lyridis, D.V.; Andreadis, G.O.; Papaleonidas, C.; Tsiampa, V. A BPM-based framework for the impact assessment of blockchain to the midstream LNG supply chain. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2021, 7, 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Vertakova, Y.V.; Golovina, T.A.; Polyanin, A.V. Synergy of blockchain technologies and “big data” in business process management of economic systems. In Proceedings of the Institute of Scientific Communications Conference, Seattle, WA, USA, 20–22 June 2019; pp. 856–865. [Google Scholar]
  128. Garcia-Garcia, J.A.; Sánchez-Gómez, N.; Lizcano, D.; Escalona, M.J.; Wojdynski, T. Using blockchain to improve collaborative business process management: Systematic literature review. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 142312–142336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Di Ciccio, C.; Meroni, G.; Plebani, P. Business process monitoring on blockchains: Potentials and challenges. In Proceedings of the Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling: 21st International Conference, BPMDS 2020, 25th International Conference, EMMSAD 2020, Held at CAiSE 2020, Grenoble, France, 8–9 June 2020; pp. 36–51. [Google Scholar]
  130. Viriyasitavat, W.; Da Xu, L.; Niyato, D.; Bi, Z.; Hoonsopon, D. Applications of blockchain in business processes: A comprehensive review. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 118900–118925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Aagesen, G.; Krogstie, J. BPMN 2.0 for modeling business processes. In Handbook on Business Process Management 1: Introduction, Methods, and Information Systems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 219–250. [Google Scholar]
  132. Sukhera, S. Modeling Process and Information Systems: Leveraging Technology to Improve Service Operations. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Oshawa, ON, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  133. De Filippi, P.; Mannan, M.; Reijers, W. Blockchain as a confidence machine: The problem of trust & challenges of governance. Technol. Soc. 2020, 62, 101284. [Google Scholar]
  134. Yapa, C.; De Alwis, C.; Liyanage, M.; Ekanayake, J. Survey on blockchain for future smart grids: Technical aspects, applications, integration challenges and future research. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 6530–6564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Leng, J.; Ruan, G.; Jiang, P.; Xu, K.; Liu, Q.; Zhou, X.; Liu, C. Blockchain-empowered sustainable manufacturing and product life cycle management in industry 4.0: A survey. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 132, 110112. [Google Scholar]
  136. Osterland, T.; Jarke, M.; Karagiannis, D.; Rose, T. Analyzing the Sustainability of Distributed Ledger Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Universitätsbibliothek der RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  137. Khan, S.N.; Loukil, F.; Ghedira-Guegan, C.; Benkhelifa, E.; Bani-Hani, A. Blockchain smart contracts: Applications, challenges, and future trends. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 2021, 14, 2901–2925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Nawari, N.O.; Ravindran, S. Blockchain technology and BIM process: Review and potential applications. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2019, 24, 209–238. [Google Scholar]
  139. Porru, S.; Pinna, A.; Marchesi, M.; Tonelli, R. Blockchain-oriented software engineering: Challenges and new directions. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE/ACM 39th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion (ICSE-C), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 20–28 May 2017; pp. 169–171. [Google Scholar]
  140. Di Ciccio, C.; Meroni, G.; Plebani, P. On the adoption of blockchain for business process monitoring. Softw. Syst. Model. 2022, 21, 915–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Viriyasitavat, W.; Hoonsopon, D. Blockchain characteristics and consensus in modern business processes. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2019, 13, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Milani, F.; Garcia-Banuelos, L.; Filipova, S.; Markovska, M. Modelling blockchain-based business processes: A comparative analysis of BPMN vs. CMMN. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2021, 27, 638–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Demichev, A.; Kryukov, A.; Prikhod’ko, N. Business Process Engineering for Data Storing and Processing in a Collaborative Distributed Environment Based on Provenance Metadata, Smart Contracts and Blockchain Technology. J. Grid Comput. 2021, 19, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Kopp, A.; Orlovskyi, D. Towards the Tokenization of Business Process Models using the Blockchain Technology and Smart Contracts. CMIS 2022, 3137, 274–287. [Google Scholar]
  145. Lu, Q.; Binh Tran, A.; Weber, I.; O’Connor, H.; Rimba, P.; Xu, X.; Staples, M.; Zhu, L.; Jeffery, R. Integrated model-driven engineering of blockchain applications for business processes and asset management. Softw. Pract. Exp. 2021, 51, 1059–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Tucci, C.L. Clarifying business models: Origins, present, and future of the concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2017, 41, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Antonopoulos, A.M. Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  148. Mougayar, W. The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice, and Application of the Next Internet Technology; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  149. Buterin, V. A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform. 2014. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A-NEXT-GENERATION-SMART-CONTRACT-&-DECENTRALIZED-Buterin/0dbb8a54ca5066b82fa086bbf5db4c54b947719a (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  150. Croman, K.; Decker, C.; Eyal, I.; Gencer, A.E.; Juels, A.; Kosba, A.E.; Miller, A.; Saxena, P.; Shi, E.; Sirer, E.G.; et al. On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains. 2016. Available online: https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1159.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  151. Tapscott, D.; Tapscott, A. Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World; Penguin: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  152. Kim, Y.; Lacity, M.C. Leveraging Blockchain technology to enhance supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 54, 3–11. [Google Scholar]
  153. Chen, J.; Zhao, H.; Li, X.; Shi, Y. Blockchain technology and its applications in the food supply chain. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 237–248. [Google Scholar]
  154. Fan, J.; Yang, Z.; Lai, K.K. Blockchain technology for food traceability: A systematic review of the current status, applications, and future prospects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 106, 215–232. [Google Scholar]
  155. Sarmah, S.P.; Yen, D.C. Blockchain for supply chain traceability: A systematic review of the literature. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 461–472. [Google Scholar]
  156. Li, S.; Li, J.; Li, Y.; Li, H. Blockchain-based supply chain finance: A systematic review and future research directions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2722. [Google Scholar]
  157. Li, T.; Cao, L. Blockchain-based supply chain finance: A case study. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 145540–145548. [Google Scholar]
  158. Dorri, A.; Kanhere, S.S.; Jurdak, R.; Gauravaram, P. Blockchain for IoT security and privacy: The case study of a smart home. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), Seoul, Republic of Korea, 14–17 May 2019; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 257–265. [Google Scholar]
  159. Guo, Y.; Li, Y. Blockchain for supply chain management: A bibliometric analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 305, 127031. [Google Scholar]
  160. Srinivasan, A.; Srivastava, B.; Teo, C.P. Blockchain in supply chain management: An analysis of applications and potentials. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 46, 87–97. [Google Scholar]
  161. Lee, J.; Lee, D.; Lee, I.; Kim, K. An analysis of Blockchain adoption in supply chain management: A literature review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 406. [Google Scholar]
  162. Zeng, Y.; Xu, X.; Xu, X. The impact of Blockchain on supply chain management: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  163. He, Q.; Zeng, D.; Li, X.; Chen, Y. Research on Blockchain-based intelligent supply chain management system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2021, 17, 390–398. [Google Scholar]
  164. Fanning, K.; Centers, D.P. Blockchain and its coming impact on supply chain management. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 114, 264–280. [Google Scholar]
  165. Xu, X.; Xu, X.; Liang, X. The application of Blockchain in e-supply chain management. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), Singapore, 31 July–2 August 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 416–420. [Google Scholar]
  166. Li, H.; Jiang, B. Blockchain technology in logistics and supply chain management: A review. Int. J. Transp. Sci. Technol. 2019, 8, 85–102. [Google Scholar]
  167. Reijers, H.A. Business Process Management: The evolution of a discipline. Comput. Ind. 2021, 126, 103404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Sarkis, J.; Cohen, M.; Dewick, P.; Schröder, P. Blockchain and supply chain: A review, a proposed framework, and future implications. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 2117–2135. [Google Scholar]
  169. Petrini, M.; Pozzebon, M. Blockchain technology for supply chain: A review. In Proceedings of the 2018 6th International Conference on Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), Barcelona, Spain, 6–8 August 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 140–147. [Google Scholar]
  170. Li, J.; Liu, J. Blockchain technology and supply chain financing. In Proceedings of the 2020 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data & Smart City (ICITBS), Vientiane, Laos, 11–12 January 2020; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  171. Tse, E. Blockchain and supply chain finance: The missing link. In Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 375–387. [Google Scholar]
  172. Wood, G. Ethereum: A Secure Decentralized Generalized Transaction Ledger. 2014. Available online: https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).
  173. Paliwal, V.; Chandra, S.; Sharma, S. Blockchain Technology for Sustainable Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review and a Classification Framework. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Vistro, D.M.; Farooq, M.S.; Rehman, A.U.; Sultan, H. Applications and Challenges of Blockchain with IoT in Food Supply Chain Management System: A Review. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Integrated Intelligent Computing Communication & Security (ICIIC 2021), Bangalore, India, 6–7 August 2021; Volume 4, pp. 596–605. [Google Scholar]
  175. Hussain, M.; Javed, W.; Hakeem, O.; Yousafzai, A.; Younas, A.; Awan, M.J.; Nobanee, H.; Zain, A.M. Blockchain-Based IoT Devices in Supply Chain Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Deepa, N.; Pham, Q.V.; Nguyen, D.C.; Bhattacharya, S.; Prabadevi, B.; Gadekallu, T.R.; Maddikunta, P.K.R.; Fang, F.; Pathirana, P.N. A survey on blockchain for big data: Approaches, opportunities, and future directions. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2022, 209–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Kassen, M. Blockchain and e-government innovation: Automation of public information processes. Inf. Syst. 2022, 103, 101862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Malik, S.; Kanhere, S.S.; Jurdak, R. ProductChain: Scalable blockchain framework to support provenance in supply chains. In Proceedings of the NCA 2018—2018 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1–3 November 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Mangla, S.K.; Kazancoglu, Y.; Ekinci, E.; Liu, M.; Özbiltekin, M.; Sezer, M.D. Using system dynamics to analyze the societal impacts of blockchain technology in milk supply chains refer. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 149, 102289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Manolache, M.A.; Tapus, N. Universal resource management and logistics using blockchain technology. In Proceedings of the Proceedings—2019 22nd International Conference on Control Systems and Computer Science, CSCS 2019, Bucharest, Romania, 28–30 May 2019; pp. 575–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Manupati, V.K.K.; Schoenherr, T.; Ramkumar, M.; Wagner, S.M.S.M.; Pabba, S.K.S.K. Inder Raj Singh, R.. A blockchain-based approach for a multi-echelon sustainable supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 58, 2222–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Mao, D.; Wang, F.; Hao, Z.; Li, H. Credit evaluation system based on blockchain for multiple stakeholders in the food supply chain. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Marinello, F.; Atzori, M.; Lisi, L.; Boscaro, D.; Pezzuolo, A. Development of a traceability system for the animal product supply chain based on blockchain technology. In Proceedings of the Precision Livestock Farming 2017—Papers Presented at the 8th European Conference on Precision Livestock Farming, ECPLF 2017, Nantes, France, 12–14 September 2017; pp. 258–268. [Google Scholar]
  184. Maroun, E.A.E.A.; Daniel, J. Opportunities for use of blockchain technology in supply chains: Australian manufacturer case study. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 5–7 March 2019; pp. 1603–1613. [Google Scholar]
  185. Martins, G.J.D.U.; Reis, J.Z.; Petroni, B.C.A.; Gonçalves, R.F.; Andrlic, B. Evaluating a Blockchain-Based Supply Chain Purchasing Process Through Simulation. In IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Mathivathanan, D.; Mathiyazhagan, K.; Rana, N.P.; Khorana, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Barriers to the adoption of block chain technology in business supply chains: A total interpretive structural modelling (TISM) approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 3338–3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Mattke, J.; Hund, A.; Maier, C.; Weitzel, T. How an enterprise blockchain application in the U.S. Pharmaceuticals supply chain is saving lives. MIS Q. Exec. 2019, 18, 245–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Meng, M.H.; Qian, Y. A Blockchain Aided Metric for Predictive Delivery Performance in Supply Chain Management. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and Logistics, and Informatics, SOLI, Singapore, 31 July–2 August 2018; pp. 285–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Merkaš, Z.; Perkov, D.; Bonin, V. The significance of blockchain technology in digital transformation of logistics and transportation. Int. J. E-Serv. Mob. Appl. 2020, 12, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Mezquita, Y.; González-Briones, A.; Casado-Vara, R.; Chamoso, P.; Prieto, J.; Corchado, J.M. Blockchain-based architecture: A MAS proposal for efficient agri-food supply chains. In Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Min, H. Blockchain technology for enhancing supply chain resilience. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Mirabelli, G.; Solina, V. Blockchain and agricultural supply chains traceability: Research trends and future challenges. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 42, 414–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Molina, J.C.; Delgado, D.T.; Tarazona, G. Using blockchain for traceability in the drug supply chain. In Communications in Computer and Information Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Mondal, S.; Wijewardena, K.P.; Karuppuswami, S.; Kriti, N.; Kumar, D.; Chahal, P. Blockchain inspired RFID-based information architecture for food supply chain. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 5803–5813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Mondragon, A.E.C.; Coronado, C.E.; Coronado, E.S. Investigating the Applicability of Distributed Ledger/Blockchain Technology in Manufacturing and Perishable Goods Supply Chains. In Proceedings of the 2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, ICIEA, Tokyo, Japan, 12–15 April 2019; pp. 728–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Mondragon, A.E.C.; Mondragon, C.E.C.; Coronado, E.S. Feasibility of Internet of Things and Agnostic Blockchain Technology Solutions: A Case in the Fisheries Supply Chain. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, ICIEA, Bangkok, Thailand, 16–21 April 2020; pp. 504–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Mondragon, A.E.C.; Mondragon, C.E.C.; Coronado, E.S. Exploring the applicability of blockchain technology to enhance manufacturing supply chains in the composite materials industry. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Applied System Invention, ICASI, Chiba, Japan, 13–17 April 2018; pp. 1300–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Montecchi, M.; Plangger, K.; Etter, M. It’s real, trust me! Establishing supply chain provenance using blockchain. Bus. Horiz. 2019, 62, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Morten Komdeur, E.F.; Ingenbleek, P.T.M. The potential of blockchain technology in the procurement of sustainable timber products. Int. Wood Prod. J. 2021, 12, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Moudoud, H.; Cherkaoui, S.; Khoukhi, L. An IoT Blockchain Architecture Using Oracles and Smart Contracts: The Use-Case of a Food Supply Chain. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, PIMRC, Istanbul, Turkey, 8–11 September 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Mukherjee, A.A.; Singh, R.K.; Mishra, R.; Bag, S. Application of blockchain technology for sustainability development in agricultural supply chain: Justification framework. Oper. Manag. Res. 2021, 15, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Kaur, R.; Sandhu, R.S.; Gera, A.; Kaur, T.; Gera, P. Intelligent Voice Bots for Digital Banking. In Proceedings of the Smart Systems and IoT: Innovations in Computing, Jaipur, India, 18–20 January 2019; Volume 141, pp. 401–409. [Google Scholar]
  203. Aithal, S.; Karan, K.P. Massive Growth of Banking Technology with the Aid of 5G Technology. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2015, 5, 617–626. [Google Scholar]
  204. Bunea, D.; Karakitsos, P.; Merriman, N.; Studener, W. Profit Distribution and Loss Coverage Rules for Central Banks; ECB Occasional Paper 169; European Central Bank: Frankfurt, Germany, 2016; pp. 1–56. [Google Scholar]
  205. Burda, D.; Teuteberg, F. The role of trust and risk perceptions in cloud archiving—Results from an empirical study. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2014, 25, 172–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Vial, G. Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and A Research Agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Chao, C.-M. Factors determining the behavioral intention to use mobile learning: An application and extension of the UTAUT model. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Chaouali, W.; Yahia, I.B.; Souiden, N. The interplay of counter-conformity motivation, social influence, and trust in customers’ intention to adopt Internet banking services: The case of an emerging country. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Cheng, R.J. UTAUT implementation of cryptocurrency-based Islamic financing instrument. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2020, 10, 873–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  211. Cucari, N.; Lagasio, V.; Lia, G.; Torrier, C. The impact of blockchain in banking processes: The Interbank Spunta case study. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2022, 34, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Ismagilova, E.; Sarker, P.; Jeyaraj, A.; Jadil, Y.; Hughes, L. A meta-analytic structural equation model for understanding social commerce adoption. Inf. Syst. Front. 2021, 25, 1421–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Rana, N.R.; Jeyaraj, A.; Clement, M.; Williams, M.F.D. Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 719–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Scott, F.W.; Wall, L.D.; White, L.J. Technological Change and Financial Innovation in Banking: Some Implications for Fintech. 2018. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3261732 (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  215. Franch-Pardo, I.; Napoletano, B.M.; Rosete-Verges, F.; Billa, L. Spatial analysis and GIS in the study of COVID-19. A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 739, 140033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Franque, F.B.; Oliveira, T.; Tam, C. Continuance intention of mobile payment: TTF model with Trust in an African context. Inf. Syst. Front. 2022, 25, 775–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Junqueira, G.C.; Ferreira, J.B.; da Silva, J.F.; Ferreira, D.B. The effects of trust transference, mobile attributes and enjoyment on mobile trust. BAR-Braz. Adm. Rev. 2015, 12, 88–108. [Google Scholar]
  218. Gupta, A.; Gupta, S. Blockchain technology: Application in Indian banking sector. Delhi Bus. Rev. 2018, 19, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Gupta, S.; Ghardallou, W.; Pandey, D.K.; Sahu, G.P. Artificial intelligence adoption in the insurance industry: Evidence using the technology–organization–environment framework. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2022, 5, 101757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Haferkorn, M.; Diaz, J.M.Q. Seasonality and interconnectivity within cryptocurrencies-an analysis on the basis of bitcoin, litecoin and namecoin. Int. Workshop Enterp. Appl. Serv. Financ. Ind. 2014, 217, 106–120. [Google Scholar]
  221. Hair, J.F.; Matthews, L.M., Jr.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Heidari, H.; Mousakhani, M.; Alborzi, M.; Divandari, A.; Radfar, R. Explaining the Blockchain Acceptance Indices in Iran Financial Markets: A Fuzzy Delphi Study. J. Money Econ. 2019, 14, 335–365. [Google Scholar]
  223. Hew, T.S.; Kadir, S.L.S.A. Predicting instructional effectiveness of cloud-based virtual learning environment. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2016, 116, 1557–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Hmoud, B.I.; Várallyai, L. Artificial intelligence in human resources information systems: Investigating its trust and adoption determinants. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2020, 5, 749–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Jena, R.K. Exploring Antecedents of Peoples’ Intentions to Use Smart Services in a Smart City Environment: An Extended UTAUT Model. J. Inf. Syst. 2022, 36, 133–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Jevsikova, T.; Gabrielė, S.; Stumbrienė, D.; Juškevičienė, A.; Dagienė, V. Acceptance of distance learning technologies by teachers: Determining factors and emergency state influence. Informatica 2021, 32, 517–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Karim, S.; Rabbani, M.R.; Bawazir, H. Applications of blockchain technology in the finance and banking industry beyond digital currencies. In Blockchain Technology and Computational Excellence for Society 5.0; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 216–238. [Google Scholar]
  228. Kawasmi, Z.; Gyasi, E.A.; Dadd, D. Blockchain adoption model for the global banking industry. J. Int. Technol. Inf. Manag. 2020, 28, 112–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Khalil, M.; Khawaja, K.F.; Sarfraz, M. The adoption of blockchain technology in the financial sector during the era of fourth industrial revolution: A moderated mediated model. Qual. Quant. 2021, 56, 2435–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Kopp, T.; Baumgartner, M.; Kinkel, S. How Linguistic Framing Affects Factory Workers’ Initial Trust in Collaborative Robots: The Interplay Between Anthropomorphism and Technological Replacement. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2022, 158, 102730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Kumari, A.; Devi, N.C. Determinants of user’s behavioural intention to use blockchain technology in the digital banking services. Int. J. Electron. Financ. 2022, 11, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. MacDonald, T.J.; Allen, D.W.E.; Potts, J. Blockchains and the boundaries of self-organized economies: Predictions for the future of banking. In Banking beyond Banks and Money; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 279–296. [Google Scholar]
  233. Manchon, J.-B.; Bueno, M.; Navarro, J. How the initial level of trust in automated driving impacts drivers’ behaviour and early trust construction. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 86, 281–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Martins, C.; Oliveira, T.; Popovič, A. Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Masrek, M.N.; Mohamed, I.S.; Daud, N.M.; Omar, N. Technology trust and mobile banking satisfaction: A case of Malaysian consumers. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 129, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Nazim, N.F.; Razis, N.M.; Hatta, M.F.M. Behavioural intention to adopt blockchain technology among bankers in islamic financial system: Perspectives in Malaysia. Rom. J. Inf. Technol. Autom. Control. 2021, 31, 11–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Oliveira, T.; Faria, M.; Thomas, M.A.; Popovič, A. Extending the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets TTF and ITM. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2014, 34, 689–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Osmani, M.; El-Haddadeh, R.; Hindi, N.; Janssen, M.; Weerakkody, V. Blockchain for next generation services in banking and finance: Cost, benefit, risk and opportunity analysis. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020, 34, 884–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Patel, R.; Migliavacca, M.; Oriani, M. Blockchain in banking and finance: A bibliometric review. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2022, 62, 101718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Patki, A.; Sople, V. Indian banking sector: Blockchain implementation, challenges and way forward. J. Bank. Financ. Technol. 2020, 4, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Raza, S.A.; Qazi, W.; Khan, K.A.; Salam, J. Social isolation and acceptance of the learning management system (LMS) in the time of COVID-19 pandemic: An expansion of the UTAUT model. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2021, 59, 183–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Oliveira, T.; Alhinho, M.; Rita, P.; Dhillon, G. Modelling and testing consumer trust dimensions in e-commerce. Computers in Human Behavior 2017, 71, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Saputra, U.W.E.; Darma, G.S. The Intention to Use Blockchain in Indonesia Using Extended Approach Technology Aceptance Model (TAM). CommIT (Commun. Inf. Technol.) J. 2022, 16, 27–35. [Google Scholar]
  244. Goudenege, L.; Molent, A.; Zanette, A. Machine learning for pricing American options in high-dimensional Markovian and non-Markovian models. Quant. Financ. 2020, 20, 573–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Alsubaie, S.M.; Mahmoud, K.H.; Bossman, A.; Asafo-Adjei, E. Vulnerability of sustainable Islamic stock returns to implied market volatilities: An asymmetric approach. Discret. Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2022, 2022, 3804871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Zhu, X.; Niu, Z.; Zhang, H.; Huang, J.; Zuo, X. Can gold and bitcoin hedge against the COVID-19 related news sentiment risk? New evidence from a NARDL approach. Resour. Policy 2022, 79, 103098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Basdekis, C.; Christopoulos, A.; Katsampoxakis, I.; Nastas, V. The impact of the Ukrainian war on stock and energy markets: A wavelet coherence analysis. Energies 2022, 15, 8174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Angerer, M.; Hoffmann, C.H.; Neitzert, F.; Kraus, S. Objective and subjective risks of investing. Financ. Res. Lett. 2021, 40, 101737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  249. Charfeddine, L.; Benlagha, N.; Maouchi, Y. Investigating the dynamic relationship between cryptocurrencies and conventional assets: Implications for financial investors. Econ. Model. 2020, 85, 198–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Gandal, N.; Hamrick, J.T.; Moore, T.; Oberman, T. Price manipulation in the Bitcoin ecosystem. J. Monet. Econ. 2018, 95, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Abbasi, G.A.; Tiew, L.Y.; Tang, J.; Goh, Y.N.; Thurasamy, R. The adoption of cryptocurrency as a disruptive force: Deep learning-based dual stage structural equation modelling and artificial neural network analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 flow diagram for the proposed systematic review.
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 flow diagram for the proposed systematic review.
Digital 04 00039 g001
Figure 2. The framework of the proposed SLR.
Figure 2. The framework of the proposed SLR.
Digital 04 00039 g002aDigital 04 00039 g002b
Figure 3. Framework for adopting blockchain for FinTech (BCA/FinTech) and the four business and financial sectors and functions (application domain).
Figure 3. Framework for adopting blockchain for FinTech (BCA/FinTech) and the four business and financial sectors and functions (application domain).
Digital 04 00039 g003
Figure 4. Find top-cited articles in library databases.
Figure 4. Find top-cited articles in library databases.
Digital 04 00039 g004
Figure 5. Define an article as a prototype and find related articles.
Figure 5. Define an article as a prototype and find related articles.
Digital 04 00039 g005
Figure 6. Clarivate’s Web of Knowledge “Discover Multidisciplinary Content” dialog.
Figure 6. Clarivate’s Web of Knowledge “Discover Multidisciplinary Content” dialog.
Digital 04 00039 g006
Figure 7. The SAGE Navigator.
Figure 7. The SAGE Navigator.
Digital 04 00039 g007
Figure 8. The “Key Readings” tab of the SAGE Navigator.
Figure 8. The “Key Readings” tab of the SAGE Navigator.
Digital 04 00039 g008
Figure 9. Librarian Assistance: the recorded video research consultations dialog.
Figure 9. Librarian Assistance: the recorded video research consultations dialog.
Digital 04 00039 g009
Table 1. The seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and corporate management.
Table 1. The seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and corporate management.
Author(s), CountriesArticle TitleJournal, Year (Citation)Key Findings
Christidis and Devetsikiotis, USA [15] “Blockchains and Smart Contracts for the Internet of Things.”IEEE/Access, 2016 (5322) * Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Zheng et al.,
China [16]
“An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends.”IEEE/International Congress o.n Big Data, 2017 (5130) *Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
Khan and Salah,
Asia/Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates [41]
“IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges.”Elsevier/Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018 (2767) *Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Luu et al.,
Asia/Singapore [40]
“Making Smart Contracts Smarter.”ACM/CCS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016 (2451) *Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Agbo et al.,
Canada [42]
“Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.”MDPI/Healthcare, 2019 (1013) *Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
Eyal and Sirer,
USA [37]
“Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable.”Cornell University/Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8437, Springer, 2014 (2980) *By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Zheng et al.,
China [18]
Blockchain challenges and opportunities: a surveyInterscience Publishers/International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 2018 (4545) *Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
* Accessed on 13 June 2024 (Google Scholar)/compiled by the authors.
Table 2. The seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and supply chain.
Table 2. The seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and supply chain.
Author(s), CountriesArticle’s TitleJournal, YearKey Findings
Khan and Salah,
Asia/Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates [41]
“IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges.”Elsevier/Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018 (2767) *Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity.
Luu et al., Asia/Singapore [40]“Making Smart Contracts Smarter.”ACM/CCS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016 (2451) *Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Agbo et al., Canada [42]“Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.”MDPI/Healthcare, 2019 (1013) *Corporate ESG activities facilitate BCA integrity, and
Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
Alcarria et al.,
Europe/Spain [44]
“A Blockchain-Based Authorization System for Trustworthy Resource Monitoring and Trading in Smart Communities.”MDPI/Sensors, 2018 (186) *Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Zheng et al.,
USA [16]
“An Overview of Blockchain Technology: Architecture, Consensus, and Future Trends.”IEEE/International Congress on Big Data, 2017 (5130) *Corporate DEI initiatives enhance BCA traceability.
Azzi et al.,
Asia/Lebanon [45]
“The power of a blockchain-based supply chain.”Elsevier/Computers and Industrial Engineering, 2019 (595) *Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
Yli-Huumo et al.,
USA [39]
“Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review.”PLoS ONE 2016 (2916) *Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
* Accessed on 13 June 2024 (Google Scholar)/compiled by the authors.
Table 3. The seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and the banking industry.
Table 3. The seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and the banking industry.
Author(s), CountriesArticle’s TitleJournal, YearKey Findings
Guo and Liang,
China [50]
“Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry.”Springer/Financial Innovation, 2016 (1234) *By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Khan and Salah,
Asia/Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates [41]
“IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges.”Elsevier/Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018 (2767) *By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Alcarria et al.,
Europe/Spain [44]
“A Blockchain-Based Authorization System for Trustworthy Resource Monitoring and Trading in Smart Communities.”MDPI/Sensors, 2018 (186) *Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Renduchintala et al.,
USA, Asia/Qatar, and India [17]
“A Survey of Blockchain Applications in the FinTech Sector.”Elsevier/Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 2022 (102) *Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Yli-Huumo et al.,
USA [39]
“Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review.”PLoS ONE 2016 (2916) *Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
Jena,
Asia/India [43]
“Examining the Factors Affecting the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Banking Sector: An Extended UTAUT Model.”MDPI/International Journal of Financial Studies, 2022 (109) *Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Agbo et al., Canada [42]“Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.”MDPI/Healthcare, 2019 (1013) *Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
* Accessed on 13 June 2024 (Google Scholar)/compiled by the authors.
Table 4. The seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and the stock markets.
Table 4. The seven most cited articles on BCA/FinTech and the stock markets.
Author(s), CountriesArticle’s TitleJournal, YearKey Findings
Yli-Huumo et al.,
USA [39]
“Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology?—A Systematic Review.”PLoS ONE 2016 (2916) *Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Zheng et al.,
China [18]
“Blockchain challenges and opportunities: a survey.”Interscience Publishers/International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 2018 (4545) *Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
Chiu and Koeppl,
Canada [51]
“Blockchain-based settlement for asset trading.”Bank of Canada/Working Paper, Ottawa, 2018 (299) *Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Gervais, et al.,
Europe/Switzerland, and Germany [52]
“On the Security and Performance of Proof of Work Blockchains.”ACM/CCS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016 (1961) *By adopting cryptocurrencies the BCA/FinTech become more efficient, scalable, and durable with anonymity, security, privacy, and transparency functionalities.
Zyskind et al.,
USA, and Asia/Israel [67]
“Decentralizing Privacy: Using Blockchain to Protect Personal Data.”IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops, 2015 (3066) *Credit corruption problems in BCA/FinTech are considered trust issues in digital transactions (banking industry, stock markets, government, etc.).
Khan and Salah,
Asia/Pakistan, and United Arab Emirates [41]
“IoT security: Review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges.”Elsevier/Future Generation Computer Systems, 2018 (2767) *Information sharing problems in BCA/FinTech are considered fidelity issues in markets, investments, and financial services.
Luu et al.,
Asia/Singapore [40]
“Making Smart Contracts Smarter.”ACM/CCS ’16: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016 (2451) *Smart contract utilization advances BCA/FinTech loyalty, commitment, and faithfulness.
* Accessed on 13 June 2024 (Google Scholar)/compiled by the authors.
Table 6. SLR screening: Search keywords mentioned (SLR data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Table 6. SLR screening: Search keywords mentioned (SLR data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
SLR Search Keyword (Screening Phase)Count
Corporate Management (CM)95
Supply Chain (SC)104
Banking Industry (BI)77
Stock Markets (SM)42
Blockchain Technology Adoption (BCA)318
Table 7. The effect of BCA on 12 critical financial variables for the four BCA/FinTech Sectors (SLR data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
Table 7. The effect of BCA on 12 critical financial variables for the four BCA/FinTech Sectors (SLR data accessed on 13 June 2024 from Google Scholar/compiled by the authors).
BCA Functionalities
(Financial Variables)
BCA/FinTech Sectors (Application Domain Areas)
Corporate ManagementSupply ChainBanking IndustryStock Markets
Faithfulness
Fidelity
Transparency
Trust
(Efficient, scalable, and durable)
Performance
Integrity
Traceability–Accountability
Loyalty
Commitment
Privacy
Anonymity
Security
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Basdekidou, V.; Papapanagos, H. Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets. Digital 2024, 4, 762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

AMA Style

Basdekidou V, Papapanagos H. Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets. Digital. 2024; 4(3):762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

Chicago/Turabian Style

Basdekidou, Vasiliki, and Harry Papapanagos. 2024. "Blockchain Technology Adoption for Disrupting FinTech Functionalities: A Systematic Literature Review for Corporate Management, Supply Chain, Banking Industry, and Stock Markets" Digital 4, no. 3: 762-803. https://doi.org/10.3390/digital4030039

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop