Investigating the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Blockchain Technology across Different Countries and Industries: A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Strategy
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
2.3. Screening and Selection
2.4. Data Extraction and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Factors for Industries and Countries
3.1.1. Technological Factors
3.1.2. Organisational Factors
3.1.3. Regulatory and Legal Factors
3.1.4. Trust and Security Factors
3.1.5. Economic and Financial Factors
3.1.6. User-Related Factors
3.1.7. Stakeholder Factors
3.1.8. Industry-Specific Factors
3.2. Factors for Countries
3.3. Factors for Industries
3.4. Factors Common among Countries
3.5. Factors Common among Industries
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Limitations and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System; Satoshi Nakamoto Institute. 2008. Available online: https://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/ (accessed on 6 July 2023).
- Taherdoost, H.; Madanchian, M. Blockchain-Based New Business Models: A Systematic Review. Electronics 2023, 12, 1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vu, N.; Ghadge, A.; Bourlakis, M. Blockchain adoption in food supply chains: A review and implementation framework. Prod. Plan. Control 2023, 34, 506–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmudnia, D.; Arashpour, M.; Yang, R. Blockchain in construction management: Applications, advantages and limitations. Autom. Constr. 2022, 140, 104379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, X.R.; Lu, Y. Blockchain technology–recent research and future trend. Enterp. Inf. Syst. 2022, 16, 1939895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sabry, S.S.; Kaittan, N.M.; Majeed, I. The road to the blockchain technology: Concept and types. Period. Eng. Nat. Sci. 2019, 7, 1821–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merlo, V.; Pio, G.; Giusto, F.; Bilancia, M. On the exploitation of the blockchain technology in the healthcare sector: A systematic review. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 213, 118897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boakye, E.A.; Zhao, H.; Ahia, B.N.K. Emerging research on blockchain technology in finance; a conveyed evidence of bibliometric-based evaluations. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2022, 33, 100437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaqoob, I.; Salah, K.; Jayaraman, R.; Al-Hammadi, Y. Blockchain for healthcare data management: Opportunities, challenges, and future recommendations. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 34, 11475–11490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AlShamsi, M.; Al-Emran, M.; Shaalan, K. A systematic review on blockchain adoption. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 4245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, R.L.; Adamashvili, N.; Tricase, C. The Impact of Blockchain Technology Adoption on Tourism Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casino, F.; Dasaklis, T.K.; Patsakis, C. A systematic literature review of blockchain-based applications: Current status, classification and open issues. Telemat. Inform. 2019, 36, 55–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gartner.com. Predicts 2019: Blockchain Business; Gartner: Stamford, CT, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, T.; Lund, B.D.; Marengo, A.; Pagano, A.; Mannuru, N.R.; Teel, Z.A.; Pange, J. Exploring the Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on International Students in Higher Education: Generative AI, Chatbots, Analytics, and International Student Success. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marengo, A.; Pagano, A. Training Time Optimization through Adaptive Learning Strategy. In 2021 International Conference on Innovation and Intelligence for Informatics, Computing, and Technologies, 3ICT 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 563–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Liu, L.; Liu, J.; Huang, X. Understanding the Determinants of Blockchain Technology Adoption in the Construction Industry. Buildings 2022, 12, 1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamble, S.S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Kumar, V.; Belhadi, A.; Foropon, C. A machine learning based approach for predicting blockchain adoption in supply Chain. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 163, 120465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balasubramanian, S.; Shukla, V.; Sethi, J.S.; Islam, N.; Saloum, R. A readiness assessment framework for Blockchain adoption: A healthcare case study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 165, 120536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malik, S.; Chadhar, M.; Vatanasakdakul, S.; Chetty, M. Factors affecting the organizational adoption of blockchain technology: Extending the technology–organization–environment (TOE) framework in the Australian context. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amico, C.; Cigolini, R. Improving port supply chain through blockchain-based bills of lading: A quantitative approach and a case study. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2023, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanzini, F.; Ubacht, J.; De Greeff, J. Blockchain adoption factors for SMEs in supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. Sci. 2021, 2, 47–68. [Google Scholar]
- Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okoli, C. A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2015, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kitchenham, B.; Brereton, P. A systematic review of systematic review process research in software engineering. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2013, 55, 2049–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewald, H.; Klerings, I.; Wagner, G.; Heise, T.L.; Stratil, J.M.; Lhachimi, S.K.; Hemkens, L.G.; Gartlehner, G.; Armijo-Olivo, S.; Nussbaumer-Streit, B. Searching two or more databases decreased the risk of missing relevant studies: A metaresearch study. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2022, 149, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sahoo, S.; Kumar, A.; Mishra, R.; Tripathi, P. Strengthening Supply Chain Visibility With Blockchain: A PRISMA-Based Review. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hölbl, M.; Kompara, M.; Kamišalić, A.; Nemec Zlatolas, L. A systematic review of the use of blockchain in healthcare. Symmetry 2018, 10, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kabir, M.R. Behavioural intention to adopt blockchain for a transparent and effective taxing system. J. Glob. Oper. Strateg. Sourc. 2021, 14, 170–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar Bhardwaj, A.; Garg, A.; Gajpal, Y. Determinants of blockchain technology adoption in supply chains by small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in India. Math. Probl. Eng. 2021, 2021, 5537395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Razali, N.A.M.; Wan Muhamad, W.N.; Ishak, K.K.; Saad, N.J.A.M.; Wook, M.; Ramli, S. Secure Blockchain-Based Data-Sharing Model and Adoption among Intelligence Communities. IAENG Int. J. Comput. Sci. 2021, 48, 18. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, N.; Ye, Z. Empirical research on the blockchain adoption–based on TAM. Appl. Econ. 2021, 53, 4263–4275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saurabh, S.; Dey, K. Blockchain technology adoption, architecture, and sustainable agri-food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 284, 124731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ullah, N.; Mugahed Al-Rahmi, W.; Alzahrani, A.I.; Alfarraj, O.; Alblehai, F.M. Blockchain technology adoption in smart learning environments. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alazab, M.; Alhyari, S.; Awajan, A.; Abdallah, A.B. Blockchain technology in supply chain management: An empirical study of the factors affecting user adoption/acceptance. Clust. Comput. 2021, 24, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grima, S.; Spiteri, J.; Romānova, I. A STEEP framework analysis of the key factors impacting the use of blockchain technology in the insurance industry. Geneva Pap. Risk Insur.—Issues Pract. 2020, 45, 398–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamble, S.; Gunasekaran, A.; Arha, H. Understanding the Blockchain technology adoption in supply chains-Indian context. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2019, 57, 2009–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lian, J.-W.; Chen, C.-T.; Shen, L.-F.; Chen, H.-M. Understanding user acceptance of blockchain-based smart locker. Electron. Libr. 2020, 38, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nuryyev, G.; Wang, Y.-P.; Achyldurdyyeva, J.; Jaw, B.-S.; Yeh, Y.-S.; Lin, H.-T.; Wu, L.-F. Blockchain technology adoption behavior and sustainability of the business in tourism and hospitality SMEs: An empirical study. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Queiroz, M.M.; Fosso Wamba, S.; De Bourmont, M.; Telles, R. Blockchain adoption in operations and supply chain management: Empirical evidence from an emerging economy. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2021, 59, 6087–6103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, L.-W.; Leong, L.-Y.; Hew, J.-J.; Tan, G.W.-H.; Ooi, K.-B. Time to seize the digital evolution: Adoption of blockchain in operations and supply chain management among Malaysian SMEs. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 52, 101997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clohessy, T.; Acton, T. Investigating the influence of organizational factors on blockchain adoption: An innovation theory perspective. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2019, 119, 1457–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoxha, V.; Sadiku, S. Study of factors influencing the decision to adopt the blockchain technology in real estate transactions in Kosovo. Prop. Manag. 2019, 37, 684–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Soh, Y.S.; Loh, H.S.; Yuen, K.F. The key challenges and critical success factors of blockchain implementation: Policy implications for Singapore’s maritime industry. Mar. Policy 2020, 122, 104265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, V.S.; Singh, A.R.; Raut, R.D.; Govindarajan, U.H. Blockchain technology adoption barriers in the Indian agricultural supply chain: An integrated approach. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alzahrani, S.; Daim, T.; Choo, K.-K.R. Assessment of the blockchain technology adoption for the management of the electronic health record systems. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2022, 70, 2846–2863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Lai, P.-L.; Yang, C.-C.; Yuen, K.F. Determinants of blockchain adoption in the aviation industry: Empirical evidence from Korea. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2021, 97, 102139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paththinige, P.; Rajapakse, C. Evaluating the Factors that Affect the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in the Pharmaceutical Supply Chain-A Case Study from Sri Lanka. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Research Conference on Smart Computing and Systems Engineering (SCSE), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1 September 2022; pp. 363–370. [Google Scholar]
- Kamarulzaman, M.S.; Hassan, N.H.; Bakar, N.A.A.; Maarop, N.; Samy, G.A.N.; Aziz, N. Factors Influencing Blockchain Adoption in Government Organization: A Proposed Framework. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Computer & Information Sciences (ICCOINS), Kuching, Malaysia, 13–15 July 2021; pp. 366–371. [Google Scholar]
- Molati, K.; Ilorah, A.I.; Moeti, M.N. Determinant Factors Influencing the Adoption of Blockchain Across SMEs in South Africa. In Proceedings of the 2021 15th International Conference on Advanced Technologies, Systems and Services in Telecommunications (TELSIKS), Nis, Serbia, 20–22 October 2021; pp. 265–269. [Google Scholar]
- Marengo, A.; Pagano, A.; Ladisa, L. Towards a mobile augmented reality prototype for corporate training: A new perspective. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile Learning 2018, Lisbon, Portugal, 14–16 April 2018; pp. 129–135. [Google Scholar]
- Mishra, R.; Singh, R.K.; Kumar, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, V. Critical success factors of Blockchain technology adoption for sustainable and resilient operations in the banking industry during an uncertain business environment. Electron. Commer. Res. 2023, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alalyan, M.S.; Jaafari, N.A.; Hussain, F.K. Technology Factors Influencing Saudi Higher Education Institutions’ Adoption of Blockchain Technology: A Qualitative Study. In Proceedings of the Advanced Information Networking and Applications: Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA-2023), Juiz de Fora, Brazil, 29–31 March 2023; Volume 1, pp. 197–207. [Google Scholar]
- Tasnim, Z.; Shareef, M.A.; Baabdullah, A.M.; Hamid, A.B.A.; Dwivedi, Y.K. An Empirical Study on Factors Impacting the Adoption of Digital Technologies in Supply Chain Management and What Blockchain Technology Could Do for the Manufacturing Sector of Bangladesh. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2023, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shardeo, V.; Patil, A.; Dwivedi, A.; Madaan, J. Modelling of critical success factors for blockchain technology adoption readiness in the context of agri-food supply chain. Int. J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 2023, 43, 80–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- 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]
- Mulaji, S.M.; Roodt, S. Factors Affecting Organisations’ Adoption Behaviour toward Blockchain-Based Distributed Identity Management: The Sustainability of Self-Sovereign Identity in Organisations. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehghani, M.; Popova, A.; Gheitanchi, S. Factors impacting digital transformations of the food industry by adoption of blockchain technology. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2022, 37, 1818–1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sciarelli, M.; Prisco, A.; Gheith, M.H.; Muto, V. Factors affecting the adoption of blockchain technology in innovative Italian companies: An extended TAM approach. J. Strategy Manag. 2022, 15, 495–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Basori, A.A.; Ariffin, N.H.M. The Adoption Factors of Two-Factors Authentication in Blockchain Technology for Banking and Financial Institutions. Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2022, 26, 1758–1764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nath, S.D.; Khayer, A.; Majumder, J.; Barua, S. Factors affecting blockchain adoption in apparel supply chains: Does sustainability-oriented supplier development play a moderating role? Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2022, 122, 1183–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prisco, A.; Abdallah, Y.O.; Morande, S.; Gheith, M.H. Factors affecting blockchain adoption in Italian companies: The moderating role of firm size. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dowelani, M.; Okoro, C.; Olaleye, A. Factors influencing blockchain adoption in the South African clearing and settlement industry. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 2022, 25, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuberkar, S.; Singhal, T.K. Factors Influencing the Adoption Intention of Blockchain and Internet-of-Things Technologies for Sustainable Blood Bank Management. Int. J. Healthc. Inf. Syst. Inform. (IJHISI) 2021, 16, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aslam, J.; Saleem, A.; Khan, N.T.; Kim, Y.B. Factors influencing blockchain adoption in supply chain management practices: A study based on the oil industry. J. Innov. Knowl. 2021, 6, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghode, D.; Yadav, V.; Jain, R.; Soni, G. Adoption of blockchain in supply chain: An analysis of influencing factors. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Database | Number of Articles |
---|---|
Scopus | 51 |
IEEE Xplore | 7 |
Springer | 656 |
Web of Science | 35 |
Google Scholar | 1020 |
Emerald | 5 |
ACM | 2 |
Science Direct | 7 |
Total | 1783 |
Source | Factors | Industry | Country |
---|---|---|---|
[28] | Perceived trust, perceived ease of use, autonomous motivation, perceived usefulness | Taxing System | Bangladesh |
[29] | Perceived ease of use, government support, vendor support, adoption intention, perceived usefulness, security concerns, top management support, technology readiness, the complexity of technology, technology compatibility, relative advantage, cost concerns | Supply chain | India |
[30] | Optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, insecurity, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness | Intelligence communities | Malaysia |
[31] | Perceived ease of use, output quality, trust, perceived usefulness, information quality | crowdsourcing platform | China |
[32] | Disintermediation, traceability, trust, coordination/control, compliance, price of technology products/services | Agriculture food supply chain | India |
[33] | Perceived usefulness, trialability, relative advantage, compatibility, perceived ease of use | Education | Malaysia |
[34] | Technology characteristics, task characteristics, inter-organisational trust, technology trust, user satisfaction, service quality, information quality, system quality, intention to adopt blockchain, blockchain efficiency, social influence, facilitating conditions, efforts expectancy, performance | Supply chain | Australia |
[35] | Customer satisfaction, cost saving, favourable economy, increased use of technological devices, government support | Insurance | Malta |
[36] | Transparency, smart contracts, shared database, secured database, reduced settlement lead times, reduced transaction cost, improved risk management, decentralised database, auditability, privacy, anonymity, immutability, provenance, traceability | Supply chain | India |
[37] | Perceived usefulness, individual technology fit, task technology fit, perceived safety, network externality, perceived ease of use | Logistics | Taiwan |
[38] | Strategic orientation, social influence, innovativeness, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, self-efficacy, complexity, security | Tourism | Taiwan |
[39] | Facilitating conditions, performance expectancy, social influence, effort expectancy, trust | Supply Chain | Brazil |
[40] | Regulatory support, competitive pressure, market dynamics, cost, upper management support, complexity, relative advantage | Supply chain | Malaysia |
[41] | disintermediation, relative advantage, maturity, smart contact coding, data security, compatibility, complexity, perceived benefits, blockchain knowledge, participation incentives, innovativeness, technology readiness, business model readiness, organisational size, top management support, organisational readiness, critical user mass, trading partner support, business use cases, government support, industry pressure, market dynamics, regulatory environment | SMEs | Ireland |
[42] | Increase in data availability, reduction in information, asymmetry, easy verification of transactions, comprehensibility of the transaction, data accuracy and reliability, data inalterability, exclusion of false information from contractual information, hacking attempts system denials, high-security encryption, cost reduction via the exclusion of intermediaries, contract conclusion with a reasonable fee, cost reduction due to process efficiency | Real Estate | Kosovo |
[43] | Sufficient capital, staff training, support from the senior management, ease of local legislation, support from the shipping community, professional consultation, and assistance | Maritime | Singapore |
[44] | Complexity, ease of use, lack of interoperability and standardisation, lack of scalability and system speed, huge resource (energy, infrastructure), initial capital requirement, lack of government regulation, lack of trust among agro-stakeholders | Agriculture | India |
[21] | Cost, governance, perceived compatibility, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, privacy, observability, security, trialability, people’s readiness, process readiness, technology readiness, top management enthusiasm, top management expertise, top management support, competitive pressure, customer’s influence, connection with ICT providers | Supply chain | Europe |
[45] | Budget availability, financial risk and uncertainty, cost saving, talent and knowledge acquisition, stakeholder’s awareness and acceptance, blockchain ecosystem, disintermediation and business process, infrastructure and platform integration, standardisation, security and privacy, blockchain maturity and use case, management support, training and skills, HIT strategy, regulation compliance, regulatory uncertainty and governance, incentives availability | Health | USA |
[46] | Regulatory governance and industry standards, technological improvements, and optimisation on efficiency, tracking and tracing, digitalised management, air traffic management | Aviation | Republic of Korea |
[47] | Relative advantage, upper management support, human resources, compatibility, cost, complexity, technological infrastructure, and architecture. | Supply Chain | Sri Lanka |
[48] | Perceived benefits, complexity, compatibility; organisational readiness, top management support, organisational size, regulatory environment, market dynamics, transparency, integrity of data, immutability | Government organisations | Malaysia |
[49] | Organisational readiness, trading partner pressure, perceived benefits, complexity, top management support, compatibility | SMEs | South Africa |
[50] | trialability, relative advantage, competitive advantage, compatibility | Construction | UK |
[51] | Management/leadership buy in, transaction cost efficiency, transaction storage/energy efficiency, scalability, security and integrity, user data privacy, user engagement and desirability, ease of local and international legislation and regulation, personnel training, availability of funds for implementation, professional consultation and advisory capability, blockchain talent availability, integration with other cloud services/e-commerce platforms, incentives for miners, smart contract robustness and business case deployability, interoperability and standardisation, technology investment and maturity | Banking | India |
[52] | Relative advantage, compatibility, observability, complexity, trialability | Education | Saudi Arabia |
[53] | Perceived usefulness, trading partners’ pressure, and competitive pressure | Manufacturing | Bangladesh |
[54] | food quality control, provenance tracking and traceability, and partnership and trust | Agri Food | India |
[55] | facilitating conditions, performance expectancy, and initial trust | Banking | India |
[56] | Infrastructure and competencies, organisation characteristics, organisation readiness, organisation size, industry and market environment, support environment, regulatory environment | Cyber Security | South African |
[57] | perceived efficiency, transparency, standardisation and platform development and traceability | Food industry | Russia, Estonia |
[58] | Efficiency and security, perceived usefulness | SMEs | Italy |
[59] | Security risk, regulatory support, technology latency, and technology complexity | Banking | Malaysia |
[60] | Relative advantage, compatibility, perceived trust, top management considerations, absorptive capacity, information sharing, collaborative culture, trading partners’ influence, regulatory support | Apparel | Bangladesh |
[61] | Perceived benefits, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, attitude, firm size | SME | Italy |
[62] | Trust, load shedding, unemployment/layoffs, current infrastructure, useful life and educational campaigns | Clearing and settlement industry | South Africa |
[63] | Task characteristics, technology characteristics, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, security concerns, government support | Blood bank | India |
[64] | Close relationship with supplier, close relationship with the customer, just-in-time (JIT), strategic planning, many suppliers outsourcing, e-procurement, third party logistics (3 PL), subcontracting, reduced lead time, flexibility, forecasting, cost saving, resource planning, reduced inventory level | Oil industry | Pakistan |
[65] | Inter-organisational, trust, relational governance, data transparency, data immutability, interoperability, product type | Supply Chain | India |
Country | Factors |
---|---|
Bangladesh | Perceived trust, perceived ease of use, autonomous motivation, perceived usefulness, trading partners’ pressure, and competitive pressure |
India | Perceived ease of use, government support, vendor support, adoption intention, perceived usefulness, security concerns, disintermediation, traceability, trust, complexity, ease of use, management/leadership buy in, transaction cost efficiency |
Malaysia | Optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, insecurity, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, perceived usefulness, trialability, relative advantage, compatibility |
China | Perceived ease of use, output quality, trust, perceived usefulness, information quality |
Australia | Technology characteristics, task characteristics, inter-organisational trust, technology trust, user satisfaction, service quality |
Malta | Customer satisfaction, cost saving, favourable economy, increased use of technological devices, government support |
Taiwan | Perceived usefulness, individual technology fit, task technology fit, perceived safety, network externality, perceived ease of use, strategic orientation, social influence, innovativeness, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, self-efficacy, complexity, security |
Brazil | Facilitating conditions, performance expectancy, social influence, effort expectancy, trust |
Ireland | Disintermediation, relative advantage, maturity, smart contact coding, data security, compatibility, complexity, perceived benefits |
Kosovo | Increase in data availability, reduction in information, easy verification of transactions |
Singapore | Sufficient capital, staff training, support from the senior management, ease of local legislation, support from the shipping community, professional consultation, and assistance |
Europe | Cost, governance, perceived compatibility, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, privacy, observability, security, trialability |
USA | Budget availability, financial risk and uncertainty, cost saving, talent and knowledge acquisition, stakeholder’s awareness and acceptance |
Republic of Korea | Regulatory governance and industry standards, technological improvements, and optimisation on efficiency, tracking and tracing, digitalised management, air traffic management |
Sri Lanka | Relative advantage, upper management support, human resources, compatibility, cost, complexity, technological infrastructure, architecture |
South Africa | Infrastructure and competencies, organisation characteristics, organisation readiness, organisation size, industry and market environment, support environment, regulatory environment, trust, load shedding, unemployment/layoffs, current infrastructure, useful life and educational campaigns |
Saudi Arabia | Relative advantage, compatibility, observability, complexity, trialability |
Russia, Estonia | Perceived efficiency, transparency, standardisation and platform development and traceability |
Italy | Efficiency and security, perceived usefulness, perceived benefits, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control |
Pakistan | Close relationship with the supplier, close relationship with the customer, just-in-time (JIT) strategic planning, many suppliers outsourcing, e-procurement, third party logistics (3 PL), subcontracting, reduced lead time, flexibility, forecasting, cost saving, resource planning, reduced inventory level |
UK | Trialability, relative advantage, competitive advantage, compatibility |
Industry | Factors |
---|---|
Taxing System | Perceived trust, perceived ease of use, autonomous motivation, perceived usefulness |
Supply Chain | Government support, vendor support, adoption intention, perceived usefulness, security concerns, top management support, technology readiness, complexity of technology, technology compatibility, relative advantage, cost concerns, transparency, smart contracts, shared database, secured database, reduced settlement lead times, reduced transaction cost, improved risk management, decentralised database, auditability, privacy, anonymity, immutability, provenance, traceability, facilitating conditions, performance expectancy, social influence, effort expectancy, trust, regulatory support, competitive pressure, market dynamics, cost, upper management support, complexity, relative advantage, perceived compatibility, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, privacy, observability, security, trialability, people’s readiness, process readiness, technology readiness, top management enthusiasm, top management expertise, top management support, competitive pressure, customer’s influence, connection with ICT providers |
Intelligence communities | Optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, insecurity, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness |
Crowdsourcing platform | Perceived ease of use, output quality, trust, perceived usefulness, information quality |
Agriculture food supply chain | Disintermediation, traceability, trust, coordination/control, compliance, price of technology products/services |
Education | Perceived usefulness, trialability, relative advantage, compatibility, perceived ease of use |
Insurance | Customer satisfaction, cost saving, favourable economy, increased use of technological devices, government support |
Logistics | Perceived usefulness, individual technology fit, task technology fit, perceived safety, network externality, perceived ease of use |
Tourism | Strategic orientation, social influence, innovativeness, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, self-efficacy, complexity, security |
SMEs | Disintermediation, relative advantage, maturity, smart contact coding, data security, compatibility, complexity, perceived benefits, blockchain knowledge, participation incentives, innovativeness, technology readiness, business model readiness, organisational size, top management support, organisational readiness, critical user mass, trading partner support, business use cases, government support, industry pressure, market dynamics, regulatory environment, organisational readiness, trading partner pressure, perceived benefits, complexity, top management support, compatibility |
Real Estate | Increase in data availability, reduction in information, asymmetry, easy verification of transactions, comprehensibility of the transaction, data accuracy and reliability, data inalterability, exclusion of false information from contractual information, hacking attempts system denials, high-security encryption, cost reduction via the exclusion of intermediaries, contract conclusion with a reasonable fee, cost reduction due to process efficiency |
Maritime | Sufficient capital, staff training, support from the senior management, ease of local legislation, support from the shipping community, professional consultation, and assistance |
Agriculture | Complexity, ease of use, lack of interoperability and standardisation, lack of scalability and system speed, huge resource (energy, infrastructure), initial capital requirement, lack of government regulation, lack of trust among agro-stakeholders |
Health | Budget availability, financial risk and uncertainty, cost saving, talent and knowledge acquisition, stakeholder’s awareness and acceptance, blockchain ecosystem, disintermediation and business process, infrastructure and platform integration, standardisation, security and privacy, blockchain maturity and use case, management support, training and skills, HIT strategy, regulation compliance, regulatory uncertainty and governance, incentives availability |
Aviation | Regulatory governance and industry standards, technological improvements, and optimisation on efficiency, tracking and tracing, digitalised management, air traffic management |
Government organisations | Perceived benefits, complexity, and compatibility, organisational readiness, top management support, and organisational size, regulatory environment and market dynamics, transparency, integrity of data, immutability |
Construction | Trialability, relative advantage, competitive advantage, compatibility |
Banking | Management/leadership buy in, transaction cost efficiency, transaction storage/energy efficiency, scalability, security and integrity, user data privacy, user engagement and desirability, ease of local and international legislation and regulation, personnel training, availability of funds for implementation, professional consultation and advisory capability, blockchain talent availability, integration with other cloud services/E-commerce platforms, incentives for miners, smart contract robustness and business case deployability, interoperability and standardisation, technology investment and maturity, facilitating conditions, performance expectancy, and initial trust, security risk, regulatory support, technology latency, and technology complexity |
Manufacturing | Perceived usefulness, trading partners’ pressure, and competitive pressure |
Agri-Food | Food quality control, provenance tracking and traceability, and partnership and trust |
Cyber Security | Infrastructure and competencies, organisation characteristics, organisation readiness, organisation size, industry and market environment, support environment, regulatory environment |
Food industry | Perceived efficiency, transparency, standardisation and platform development and traceability |
Clearing and settlement industry | Trust, load shedding, unemployment/layoffs, current infrastructure, useful life and educational campaigns |
Blood bank | Task characteristics, technology characteristics, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, security concerns, government support |
Oil industry | Close relationship with supplier, close relationship with customer, just-in-time (JIT) strategic planning, many suppliers outsourcing, E-procurement, third party logistics (3 PL), subcontracting, reduced lead time, flexibility, forecasting, cost saving, resource planning, reduced inventory level |
Factor | Countries |
---|---|
Perceived ease of use | Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, China, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Saudi Arabia, Italy |
Perceived usefulness | Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, China, Taiwan, Italy |
Government support | India, Malta, Ireland, India, Sri Lanka, Malaysia |
Top management support | India, Ireland, Europe, India, South Africa, Italy |
Trust | Bangladesh, China, India, Brazil, South Africa |
Complexity | India, Taiwan, Europe, India, South Africa |
Compatibility | Malaysia, Europe, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Italy |
Security concerns | India, Taiwan, Europe, USA, India |
Technology readiness | India, Ireland, Europe |
Perceived benefits | Ireland, Malaysia, Italy |
Relative advantage | Malaysia, Sri Lanka, UK, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh |
Factor | Industries |
---|---|
Perceived ease of use | Supply chain, taxing system, intelligence communities, crowdsourcing platform, education, logistics, SMEs, maritime, agriculture, government organisations, banking, manufacturing, agri-food, cyber security, apparel, clearing and settlement industry, blood bank, oil industry |
Perceived usefulness | Supply chain, taxing system, intelligence communities, crowdsourcing platform, education, logistics, SMEs, maritime, agriculture, government organisations, banking, manufacturing, agri-food, cyber security, apparel, clearing and settlement industry, blood bank, oil industry |
Trust | supply chain, taxing system, crowdsourcing platform, agriculture, food, insurance, real estate, SMEs, construction, banking, manufacturing, apparel |
Government support | Supply chain, insurance, SMEs, maritime, agriculture, SMEs, banking |
Compatibility | supply chain, SMEs, construction, banking, education, apparel |
Security concerns | Supply chain, logistics, maritime, agriculture |
Top management support | Supply chain, education, SMEs, banking |
Complexity | Supply chain, intelligence communities, tourism, SMEs, agriculture, banking |
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Marengo, A.; Pagano, A. Investigating the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Blockchain Technology across Different Countries and Industries: A Systematic Literature Review. Electronics 2023, 12, 3006. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12143006
Marengo A, Pagano A. Investigating the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Blockchain Technology across Different Countries and Industries: A Systematic Literature Review. Electronics. 2023; 12(14):3006. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12143006
Chicago/Turabian StyleMarengo, Agostino, and Alessandro Pagano. 2023. "Investigating the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Blockchain Technology across Different Countries and Industries: A Systematic Literature Review" Electronics 12, no. 14: 3006. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12143006
APA StyleMarengo, A., & Pagano, A. (2023). Investigating the Factors Influencing the Adoption of Blockchain Technology across Different Countries and Industries: A Systematic Literature Review. Electronics, 12(14), 3006. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12143006