Comparative analysis of blockchain adoption in the public and private sectors. A technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework approach

Benchis, Melisa Petra; Shahzad, Khuram; Dan, Sorin Article Comparative analysis of blockchain adoption in the public and private sectors. A technology-organizationenvironment (TOE) framework approach Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK) Provided in Cooperation with: Elsevier Suggested Citation: Benchis, Melisa Petra; Shahzad, Khuram; Dan, Sorin (2025) : Comparative analysis of blockchain adoption in the public and private sectors. A technology-organizationenvironment (TOE) framework approach, Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (JIK), ISSN 2444-569X, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Vol. 10, Iss. 4, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100746 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/327641 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Comparative analysis of blockchain adoption in the public and private sectors. A technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework approach Melisa Petra Benchis , Khuram Shahzad * , Sorin Dan University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 32, 65200 Vaasa, Finland ARTICLE INFO JEL codes: O3 O32 O33 O310 O320 O330 O380 L320 L330 Keywords: Blockchain adoption Private sector Public sector TOE framework Comparative analysis Technology-organization-environment ABSTRACT Blockchain technology (BT) can potentially enhance transparency, efficiency, and trust across all domains. However, it remains unclear how the relative adoption of BT between the private and public sectors compares in light of existing studies. This article contributes to the literature by evaluating the adoption process through the technology, organizational, and environmental dimensions of the TOE framework. A comparative research design was employed through 21 semi-structured interviews with participants from the public and private sectors in Finland. The results indicate that challenges to adoption uniformly exist between both sectors in the form of regulatory concerns and misconceptions regarding energy matters, as well as incentives that are directly linked to the sector. The private sector is incentivized to adopt BT for scalability, efficiency, and responsiveness to market demand in light of competitive advantage. The public sector is motivated to adopt BT through transparency and regulatory concerns, although a willingness to accommodate legacy systems in the short term exists so that public services and activities are not interrupted. In addition, our findings highlight the important role of public institutions in BT adoption. Ultimately, both sectors require strong visionary leadership and training to overcome knowledge deficiencies and proof-of-concept studies to reduce uncertainty and reliance on external applications and partnerships. This article contributes to the literature by comparatively highlighting the similarities and differences in this phenomenon. It offers practical and policy-related implications and encourages an industryspecific approach to adoption, cross-industry innovations, and regulatory policies. Introduction The increasing awareness and growing interest in digital technologies have put digital transformation at the top of organizational agendas (Hafeez et al., 2025) as organizations seek to develop their innovative digital capabilities (Shahzad et al., 2025a). Emerging technologies such as blockchain technology (BT) play a pivotal role in driving these transformations. BT has emerged over the years as a set of innovations that capture interest and investment across both governmental institutions and private enterprises (Haq et al., 2024; Juszczyk & Shahzad, 2022; Mahula et al., 2025, 2025; Shahzad et al., 2024a; Tan et al., 2022a). BT is a decentralized database that enables secure, transparent, and tamper-proof information to be shared via a distributed ledger system (DLT) (Rodríguez Bolívar et al., 2019). The core attributes of the technology include security, decentralization, and immutability. Its disruptive potential is evident in its ability to replace traditional technologies and processes, leading to enhanced performance, transparency, cost, and operational efficiency (Shahzad, 2020). It evolved into a multipurpose tool applied across industries, including financial systems, digital rights management, and public governance (Kayani & Hasan, 2024; Nakamoto, 2008; Rodríguez Bolívar et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2022a). However, blockchain adoption is far from being a technology, considering its multiple applications. In the private sector, BT is most popular—with effective application—for its operability, transparency, and decreased costs. It is used in supply chains to improve tracking in financial capital markets for increased transaction speeds and decentralized lending opportunities and in the energy market for peer-to-peer trades and decentralized energy grids (Dehghani et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2024). However, in the public sector, BT is theorized for better governance and better service delivery results (Tan et al., 2022a). Key applications include digital identity management, ensuring secure and tamper-proof records and land registries, providing transparency in * Corresponding author: University of Vaasa, Wolffintie 32, 65200 Vaasa, Finland. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.P. Benchis), [email protected] (K. Shahzad), [email protected] (S. Dan). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Innovation & Knowledge journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jik https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2025.100746 Received 16 January 2025; Accepted 27 May 2025 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 Available online 5 June 2025 2444-569X/© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. on behalf of Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). property transactions, and voting systems, and offering transparent and immutable electoral processes (Andoni et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2025; Toufaily et al., 2021). While empirical studies have explored the adoption of BT in both the public and private sectors separately (Cagigas et al., 2023; Rodríguez Bolívar et al., 2019; Shahzad et al., 2024a; Sousa, 2023; Tan et al., 2022a, 2025), comparisons of the adoption processes between the two remain limited (with the exception of Toufaily et al., 2021). This study explores these processes from a comparative perspective, identifying how the technology-organization-environment (TOE) factors differ on the basis of the adoption intention and implementation processes between the two sectors. The significance of evaluating the similarities and differences between blockchain adoption in the public and private sectors comes from different drives and limitations (Rodríguez Bolívar et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2025; Wong et al., 2020). Our results, supported by triangulation from other research, demonstrate that the private sector prioritizes outcomes such as efficiency, scalability, and competitive advantage on the basis of industry (Andrews et al., 2011; Boyne, 2002). Conversely, the public sector is more concerned with regulatory compliance and transparency, leading to a more reserved approach to adoption and a focus on the know-how process, which is often aligned with existing legacy systems (Boyne, 2002; Osborne, 2006). Therefore, relative to this study, a comparative assessment of the findings provides a clearer picture of the dynamics at play, which is beneficial in the long term for policymakers, executives, and practitioners within their industry, as they need to know how to best adopt BT to suit their specific needs. Furthermore, understanding how adoption differs creates effective government synergy through public-private partnerships that can ensure greater effectiveness of BT knowledge and operational retention within sectors (Toufaily et al., 2021). This research is grounded in the TOE framework, which is a consistent model of delimitation that examines technological innovation from an organizational viewpoint. While other potential theories such as the diffusion of innovation or the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology only examine the adoption experience from the customer viewpoint, the TOE confines the researcher to a more systematic explanation of organizational, micro, and macro dynamics (Chittipaka et al., 2023; Dehghani et al., 2022). TOE is a fairly utilized framework and has been applied in many relevant studies to investigate blockchain adoption across multiple industries. For example, TOE has been used in supply chain research (Chittipaka et al., 2023), finance and banking (Daidai & Tamnine, 2023; Kayani & Hasan, 2024), enterprise resource planning systems (Awa et al., 2016), and even cross-country studies at the organizational level (Malik et al., 2022). TOE is particularly appropriate for this research because it offers a strong theoretical framework and empirical relevance to the results of prior studies. In addition, it allows for an all-encompassing evaluation of the adoption of BT in both sectors (Malik et al., 2022; Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990). Thus, the objective of our study is to explore how the public and private sectors are similar and different in terms of blockchain adoption at the levels of technology, organization, and the environment. Our study contributes to the growing body of research on blockchain adoption by offering a comparative analysis of the specific similarities and differences between the public and private sectors. By leveraging the TOE framework, this research examines how technological, organizational, and environmental factors shape BT adoption in distinct ways across both sectors. In doing so, it advances existing research by identifying common adoption challenges while outlining sector-specific drivers that influence BT implementation strategies. In particular, this study makes the following contributions to the literature: (1) a foundation for building cross-sector collaboration, allowing public and private entities to leverage each other’s strengths and collectively address common pain points in BT adoption, and (2) insights into sector-specific adoption strategies, offering recommendations that encourage synergies between government agencies and private enterprises through wellstructured partnerships and policy frameworks. Thus, the recommendations focus on regulatory consistency and ease, where pro-blockchain actions exist. Furthermore, a mentality change is necessary to ensure that BT is not perceived as just another disruptive cryptocurrency that consumes excessive energy. The relatively recent discoveries about new energy reserves and new compliance and energy public-private partnerships will legitimize safe, compliant, efficient, and seamless integration of blockchain in the future. In the public sector, inexpensive pilot programs can validate whether BT can enhance existing transparency, efficiency, and quality of services rendered. These programs serve not only as validation for the feasibility of current services rendered but also as the ideal operating atmosphere for scalability. In the private sector, scalability depends on the buy-in of the institution, thus, management must target training, a focused, nearcontextual definition of implementation, and relative involvement in operations to achieve efficiency, stabilization, and data privacy. Moreover, educated implementation requires corrections to misconceptions from within and fostering an intrapreneurial culture to ease assimilation. Ultimately, BT adoption is an organizational change, not just a technological change, via compliance and cooperation. This study sets the trajectory for future studies about the interplay of adopting BT with other emerging technologies such as AI and the IoT. As this technology advances and opportunities for intrafield research yield greater understanding, future legislators, managers, and engineers will be better equipped to adopt it in multiple commercial and governmental arenas. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: The following section synthesizes the extant literature, developing a theoretical foundation for our paper. This is followed by a description of our methodological design, including the data collection and analysis approach. We then explain our findings in the results section. Finally, we conclude our paper by discussing our results with existing research and offer theoretical and managerial implications followed by limitations and future research avenues. Literature review Blockchain adoption in the public and private organizations The theoretical phenomenon of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and its practical use for BT, which stems from Nakamoto’s work on Bitcoin has exponentially increased academically relevant research on this topic. The literature supports the theoretical foundations of BT with practical applications for business governance and advancements by public regulators. For example, Toufaily et al. (2021) conducted a comprehensive literature review in which the reader can see ‘nine streams of research related to blockchain adoption’ (Toufaily et al., 2021, p. 2). These streams include but are not limited to, the postulation of barriers to adoption, privacy concerns, socioeconomic micro/macro, business/governance notions about BT, third-party accommodations of influence, present and future applications of BT, etc., and discuss the external factors that affect the state of BT adoption. In this context, as the use of BT has been more prevalent during the last few years, we can see an increase in more in-depth studies (Haq et al., 2024; Sanda et al., 2022; Shahzad et al., 2024a; Sung & Park, 2021), especially from an adoption standpoint (Zhang et al., 2024). The private sector was an early adopter of BT, as it dealt with less scrutiny from the legislative system, treating it with flexibility. Later, the focus on blockchain emerged, and it was reoriented to solutions tailored to business objectives. This practical approach has led to various applications across industries and regions (Alhasan & Hamdan, 2023; Asa & Zosu, 2023; Daidai & Tamnine, 2023; Gupta et al., 2024). While earlier research articles focused on blockchain’s technical features and design (Akram et al., 2020; Tripathi et al., 2023; Upadhyay, 2020), recent studies have shifted toward exploring its potential to deliver measurable business value, its applications across sectors, and its modeling impact at the organizational level (Abbas & Myeong, 2024; M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 2 Rahman et al., 2024; Sharma et al., 2022). Recent studies have broadened the scope of BT applications from traditional use cases, such as cross-border transactions, data storage, and supply chain traceability (Abbas & Myeong, 2024; Li et al., 2023), to emerging areas, such as renewable energy trading (Cui et al., 2023; Rejeb et al., 2024), decentralized identity management (Yan et al., 2024), the integration of BT with AI for predictive analytics (Ressi et al., 2024), and financial services and identity management (Daidai & Tamnine, 2023; Manzoor et al., 2022; Shahzad et al., 2024a; Wang et al., 2019;). Ejairu et al. compared BT applications in the USA and Africa. In the USA, it leverages BT for streamlined processes through smart contracts, whereas in Africa, the technology inspires trust despite infrastructural setbacks. The recurrent themes, however, are trust creation and enabling collaboration in sectors such as supply chain management (Shahzad et al., 2024a), logistics (Ganguly, 2024), and finance (Daidai & Tamnine, 2023; Kayani & Hasan, 2024). Nevertheless, challenges such as accountability in smart contract failures and security breaches persist (Chu et al., 2023), highlighting the need for risk mitigation frameworks. Adoption disparities further complicate integration, with SMEs facing resource constraints (Clemente-Almendros et al., 2024), whereas larger firms lead adoption efforts (Dehghani et al., 2022). The lack of consistent regulatory frameworks is also a barrier to growth in the areas of finance and healthcare, despite partial solutions such as the EU’s MiCA and DORA frameworks (Cappai, 2023; European Union, 2024). In this context, Finland’s proactive legal approach demonstrates how regulation can foster innovation, but challenges such as scalability and change management still persist (Sorsa & Salmi-Tolonen, 2021). The adoption of BT in the public sector has garnered increasing attention as governments seek innovative solutions to keep pace with social changes and scientific advancements in society (Dehghani et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022a). Xanthopoulou et al. (2023) highlighted that the public sector represents a key area for blockchain applications, with over 200 use cases reported globally by governments and public organizations. Foundational uses include identity verification and authentication, as demonstrated in a 2017 study of Canada’s public‒private ecosystems, where blockchain systems ensured data integrity across institutions such as banks, healthcare providers, and government agencies (Sung & Park, 2021; Tan et al., 2022a; Wolfond, 2017). Blockchain adoption in the public sector prioritizes governmental obligations, such as centralized identity management, alongside productivity, security, and potential threats (Khalfan et al., 2022; Rodríguez Bolívar et al., 2019). E-governance models incorporating blockchain-based solutions demonstrate improvements in data management, legal compliance tracking, and addressing ethical dilemmas (Kassen, 2024; Mustafa et al., 2024). Additionally, public‒private partnerships (PPPs) based on BT provide both parties with the opportunity to achieve their sustainability goals by promoting accountability and citizen-centric frameworks while also emphasizing privacy and compatibility with existing systems (Tafuro et al., 2023). However, regulatory barriers remain, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), variations in jurisdictions, and general scalability issues (Tan et al., 2022a). Most institutions still operate on legacy systems that require significant updates, whereas bureaucratic structures are resistant to change (Shahzad et al., 2024b, 2025b). Overcoming these challenges demands targeted investments in infrastructure, comprehensive training for civil servants, and the promotion of organizational learning (Irani et al., 2023; Tan et al., 2022a). In this context, Haq et al. (2024) and Kusi et al. (2024) emphasize that leadership plays a critical role in addressing these challenges by identifying competencies in curiosity, understanding technology, and aligning blockchain outcomes with organizational objectives. Leadership that fosters a collaborative, curiosity-driven mindset is vital when initiating and navigating these complexities (Shahzad et al., 2025b). The public sector’s interest in BT stems from its potential to restore and maintain trust in public institutions through decentralization and transparency. Countries are testing BT-related applications for service traceability and public voting (i.e., EtherVote), and most of these applications are effective, although they face some regulatory and ethical challenges, as well as privacy and access equity issues (Abbas & Myeong, 2024; Charlebois et al., 2024; Hossain Faruk et al., 2024; Spanos & Kantzavelou, 2023). Finally, protection from a lack of quality in service procurement can be addressed through transparency powered by BT solutions. This model will create trust in government agencies while diminishing human error (Zhang et al., 2024). However, integration requires financial investments and appropriate legislation to set private and access equity standards. While some of the prior literature offers insight into intentions to adopt BT, few studies assess challenges for specific industries in a critical fashion. Toufaily et al. (2021) analyzed the challenges and implications of BT adoption via a theory-driven approach, assessing types of blockchain. Dehghani et al. (2022) applied the TOE framework to assess a better understanding of BT adoption across various industries; however, they did not assess how the public and private sectors differ in their drivers of BT adoption. In addition, recent findings by Mahula et al. (2025) acknowledge specific important elements that are only found in the public sector. For example, a motivating intention of leadership is to gain revenue for private sector implementation (Kusi et al., 2024). Therefore, while each of these studies notes the sector-specific situational setting in which BT implementation works or does not work at times, this does not transform into a comparative assessment of how each sector implements it. Thus, our research becomes pertinent, as we offer comparative insights based on a multisector perspective on what elements affect blockchain implementation through the lens of TOE. TOE framework in the context of BT adoption across sectors The TOE framework was developed by Tornatzky and Fleischer (1990) and has been widely applied in research as an efficient model for studying technological innovation across various contexts, addressing both the technical and non-technical factors of adoption (Baker, 2011). Scholars agree that, compared with other available frameworks, TOE offers a holistic perspective of technological adoption by not accounting for industry-specific constraints or the size of a specific organization (Awa et al., 2017). In this context, the TOE framework has been widely applied in studies analyzing technology adoption and innovations, including BT research (Awa et al., 2017; Dehghani et al., 2022; Ganguly, 2024; Koster & Borgman, 2020; Suwanposri et al., 2021; Taherdoost, 2022). The technological context consists of technological equipment, infrastructure, and processes. It focuses on the characteristics of the technology itself, including compatibility (Chittipaka et al., 2023), complexity (Suwanposri et al., 2021) with existing systems, and perceived benefits (Chittipaka et al., 2023). The organizational dimension considers the organizational competence regarding human resources, centralized decisions, formalization of processes, the organization structure, and relations among employees, as well as other internal factors such as top management support, organizational readiness, size, and resources that influence an institution’s ability to adopt BT (Awa et al., 2017; Dehghani et al., 2022). The environmental context includes the influence of factors outside the organization’s control, such as competitors, the macro environment, regulation, and the level of available technological support. The use of BT is arguably more susceptible to regulatory ecosystems where compliance with laws such as the GDPR or financial transaction standards dramatically alters BT implementation (Awa et al., 2017; Baker, 2011; Haroun et al., 2020). This article utilizes the TOE framework as a measurement because it allows for the gradual transition from considering private and public entities separately to a blended approach to assessing their adoption processes (Baker, 2011). Furthermore, since each dimension aligns with a distinct variable of the adoption process, it is particularly significant in forming a perspective for comparing the different sectors. The TOE framework supports such an assessment by measuring the adoption M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 3 process through the lenses of technology, organization, and the environment. This promotes a sector-specific understanding of the differences and general challenges of a vast potential strategy to what could be necessary for blockchain adoption for future organizations and institutions. In addition, by taking inspiration from the future recommendations of prior research, we consider it an appropriate approach to cover this nuance of the BT adoption process through the TOE framework. We opted to conduct our cross-sectoral study by analyzing the technological, organizational, and environmental dimensions of the BT adoption process. By utilizing the TOE framework, we attempt to establish a structured method of comparison between the determinant factors of the adoption process (Chittipaka et al., 2023; Dehghani et al., 2022; Haroun et al., 2020; Malik et al., 2022; Toufaily et al., 2021). Methodology Data collection Data collection is part of more extensive research that aims to study and explore BT adoption processes and implications within the public and private sectors. The data collection was conducted between 2022 and 2023. The basis of the dataset consists of 21 semi-structured interviews (Roulston & Choi, 2018). We interviewed 11 participants from private sector firms and 10 from public sector organizations operating in Finland and obtained very rich qualitative insights into organizational challenges and opportunities related to BT implementation. Table 1 details the organizations involved and the participants’ background information. The data from the 21 interviews reached saturation when the interviews ceased to provide new themes or insights (Fusch & Ness, 2015). We continuously reviewed our data until the entire text was coded according to the relevance of the topic, as we tried to identify if the new interviews would introduce and contribute additional perspectives. After seven to eight interviews in each sector, no significant new themes were identified, and the rest of the interviews only reinforced existing insights, supporting the viability of our sample size (Saunders et al., 2018). These interviews were conducted in English through Zoom and Microsoft Teams and lasted 40–102 min. Each session was fully transcribed, anonymized for confidentiality, and compiled in a 132-page dataset for analysis. The interview questions were tailored to obtain reflections on participants’ experiences in adopting BT, understanding organizational processes, and contextual factors affecting decisionmaking processes in each sector (G¨ okalp et al., 2020). To increase the reliability of the data, some interviews were cofacilitated by two researchers, guaranteeing consistent interpretation and capturing a range of responses. By adopting this approach, the study explored the nuanced adoption processes in the public and private sectors, emphasizing their technological, organizational, and environmental contexts as framed within the TOE framework (Baker, 2011). Data analysis An abductive approach was performed regarding data analysis considering the TOE framework to explore blockchain adoption in the public and private sectors. MaxQDA software version 2024 (MaxQDA, 2024) was used for the coding process to track and analyze key processes. To ensure inter-coding reliability, we compared the results to assess the consistency in theme identification. Unclarities were addressed through discussions that led to consensus. The analysis started with a preliminary read-through of the interview transcripts to ensure that the researchers were acquainted with the data. From this, a second reading took place to create codes that would represent the ideas descriptively and thematically regarding the processes of BT adoption. After the coding process reached saturation, we organized the codes on the three dimensions of TOE—technology, organization, and environment (Awa et al., 2017; Chittipaka et al., 2023; Malik et al., 2022)—for each sector (even if there was an overlap of codes). In total, the private sector analysis resulted in 71 codes for Technology, 116 for Organization, and 63 for Environment, whereas the public sector analysis resulted in 75 codes for Technology, 148 for Organization, and 45 for Environment. Distinctions appeared as some codes overlapped across sectors, whereas others were specific to one sector. The codes relating to each category of the TOE framework were paired together via the principles of the Gioia methodology (Gioia et al., 2013). To strengthen our understanding of the results, we checked them against industry reports, policy documents for innovation and development, documents from different organizations, reports, and web pages. This ensured triangulation and alignment with real-world implementation trends (Denzin, 2012). Subthemes of codes in each TOE category were created and then aggregated into themes to create logical visual representations and narratives. This led to the development of a clear and coherent narrative, visually represented in the accompanying diagrams from the results section. The private sector analysis can be summarized in 31 subthemes across 9 themes for Technology. Organizations are summarized as 12 subthemes across 6 themes and 14 subthemes across 7 themes for the environment. The Table 1 List of participants and their background. Companies Participants’ Positions Organization Duration of interviews Private sector companies Company 1 CEO (1) Agile software development 87 mins Company 2 CEO (2) Energy production 58 mins Company 3 Project Manager (PM) (1) Energy production 53 mins Company 4 CEO (3) IT services 40 mins Company 5 CEO (4) Delivery and installation solutions for marine and rolling stock industries 74 mins Company 6 Project Manager (PM) (2) Technology centre 72 mins Company 7 Board Member (BM) Education, community, and networking 46 mins Company 8 CEO (5) Energy production 54 mins Company 9 Communication and Branding Manager (CBM) Business services 63 mins Company 10 Executive Vice President Automation, protection, and distribution 56 mins Company 11 CEO (6) Supplier of waste-tovalue products 54 mins Public sector organizations Organization 1 Developer Tax administration and revenue Management 102 mins Organization 2 CTO Digital identity solutions 54 mins Organization 3 Chief Ecosystem and Technology Officer Traffic management and control 45 mins Organization 4 Infrastructure Director Public transport, streets, parks, forests, marinas and ports 35 mins Organization 5 Managing Director Education material for Finnish schools and legal information. (Legal field) 56 mins Organization 6 Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) Social insurance and protection organization 75 mins Organization 7 Counselor and Head of Public Procurement Public procurement 46 mins Organization 8 Main Advisor Radiation and nuclear safety 57 mins Organization 9 Public Senior Advisor Policy projects related to digitalization in the public sector, digital identity, EU blockchain 46 mins Organization 10 Researcher Cryptography and security 65 mins M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 4 public sector had 18 subthemes across 8 themes for Technology, 18 subthemes across 7 themes for Organization, and 10 subthemes across 5 themes for Environments. Results Private sector As deduced from the coding process (summary in Fig. 1), the private sector is transactional in approach. For the private sector to produce capital, it needs to maximize its resources. On the basis of the data, the adoption of BT is characterized by the enhancement of processes for scalability and order, energy efficiency, and adaptability to the market and customer needs. Private organizations see the potential of BT on the basis of its ability to enhance operational efficiency, data privacy, and competitive advantages. Organizationally, the private sector takes a flexible approach compared with the public sector, which is oriented toward innovation. It promotes a degree of decentralization in decisionmaking and fosters alignment across departments, enabling the formation of strategic goals. Environmentally, private organizations operate pressured by the competitive market, which forces them to navigate regulatory frameworks while pursuing partnerships. On the basis of the narrative of the results of the structure of the TOE framework, we organized the data in Table 2, presenting the thematic perspective of the private sector regarding BT adoption. In the private sector, the technology section of the TOE framework is constructed on the basis of the coupling of codes belonging to the technical side of the innovation process. This section is composed of 71 codes in total, grouped into 30 s-order groups, and further paired into 9 themes representative of BT adoption. At the same time, the frequency of the codes creates a detailed accent on the repeating concepts seen through the interviews. This is why the private sector prioritizes BT’s capacity to track inputs, outputs, and processes; privacy and transparency; and adequate integration of the code with existing infrastructure. A unique aspect includes the focus on energy-related applications and the potential that BT has for monitoring and validating data in realtime operations for the energy sector and waste management in Finland. The organizational component within the TOE framework has the highest volume of codes in the private sector, reflecting the internal dynamics, structural challenges, and cultural readiness essential for adopting BT. With 116 codes, 12 subthemes, and 6 themes, this section examines the relationships between employee mindsets, knowledge gaps, leadership vision, decision-making structures, and resource allocation as part of the organizational perspective, with each theme highlighting the organizational nuances that influence the success of BT adoption. The environment section is constructed on the basis of codes that reflect the external influences affecting BT integration. This section comprises approximately 64 codes organized into 14 secondary groups and further categorized into 7 overarching themes that highlight key environmental factors for BT adoption. External influences here include market competition, industry-specific regulatory compliance, and potential collaboration with technology providers. Codes reveal a strong focus on addressing competitive pressures and adjusting to rapidly changing industry trends. The uniqueness of the private sector in this section is the challenge of navigating regulatory requirements and deciding to pursue profitability through BT innovations or deciding to wait for the competition and large players to establish the market. Public sector In the public sector, the main driver of BT adoption is the need to optimize the available resources (summary of codes in Fig. 2). In this section, the adoption process is characterized by public service quality, system updates, compatibility, intensive planning, technical know-how development, regulatory compliance, and interagency collaboration. At the same time, in the case of the public sector, society holds them accountable for the implementation of this technology; hence, the priorities of transparency, stability, and alignment with the existing infrastructures strongly resonate. Top-down decision-making and C-suite involvement are highly visible, so blockchain initiatives need to align with the mission and tasks of the public sector. On the basis of the narrative of the results of the structure of the TOE framework, we organized the data in Table 3, presenting the thematic perspective of the public sector regarding BT adoption. Similarities and differences in blockchain adoption between the private and public sectors This section presents the similarities and differences between the two sectors via the structural lenses of the TOE framework. As the framework Fig. 1. Private sector codes frequency—Codes cloud. M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 5 was used to establish the lenses through which we regarded the adoption process of BT in both sectors independently, it is now the unifying spine of the data, and it helps with creating a structure of comparison. This approach can allow the reader to better understand how the sectors navigate the challenges and opportunities they encounter and what the relationship is between the private and public sectors regarding BT. Therefore, this comparison is meant as an assessment guideline for the sectors so that they can pinpoint the grounds on which to build partnerships and the rationale behind them. These comparisons are also an assessment of the unique points that differentiate them in terms of value generation. Similarities of the BT adoption process in the private and public sectors The similarities in these sectors are marked by shared goals for both sectors, despite the different organizational contexts. The common points were identified in the challenges the sectors are facing while trying to implement BT and the common general approach for adoption. By using TOE on the coded data, we observed that both individual sectors follow a similar structure of thinking in the process of BT adoption while making the action plan personalized to the needs of each sector. Technology (T). Both the private and the public sectors acknowledge the technical potential of BT as a tool that can improve the transparency of data. This feature is deemed to improve communication between departments and reduce silos, which would create efficiency in the process reliant on the data reports. This characteristic is paired with BT’s ability to enhance security for both sectors, making it difficult for individuals working inside or outside the organization to tamper with the data owing to the traceable unique record. Both sectors agreed that this characteristic would enhance trust between different stakeholders and build accountability. In the private sector, this aspect would create credibility and trust for the clients and would boost trust with shareholder partners. For government agencies, the characteristics align with the mission of maintaining transparency between civilians and businesses alike. Both sectors require an assessment of the level of compatibility, applications, and risks of the technology with the organizational scope. Table 2 Private sector - TOE framework on themes. TOE Factor Themes Sub-themes Technology Implementation readiness and technical barriers •Infrastructure and Resource Limitations •Technological Readiness and Maturity •Time Constraints and Implementation Challenges •Evaluation and Compatibility •Transition and Integration Requirements Privacy, security, and trust concerns •Data Privacy Concerns •Security and Cybersecurity Measures •Trust and Data Sharing Complexity •Protocol and Cost-Related Concerns Cost and financial impact •Cost as a Barrier •Value and Cost Efficiency •Return on Investment and Value Generation Energy consumption and environmental impact •Potential Use Cases of Blockchain Technology (BT) in Energy •Energy Concerns as Barriers •Marketing and Awareness Challenges Use cases, application potential, and practical benefits •Industry-Specific Applications •Data Storage, Verification, and Accessibility •Process Automation and Operational Efficiency •Financial Transactions and Tax Applications •Pilot Testing and Implementation Challenges •Theoretical vs. Practical Use Cases Transparency and accountability enhancements •Transparency in Data and Communication •Security and Accountability •Organizational Impact Marketing, perception, and knowledge barriers •Misconceptions and Associations with Cryptocurrencies •Lack of Proof and Concrete Use Cases •Marketing and Communication Challenges Technological compatibility and integration challenges •Importance of Digital Infrastructure •Business Model Optimization User experience and interface design •User-Friendly Interface Development •Usability and Profitability Organizational Resistance and mindset challenges •Resistance to change •Mindset and perception barriers Knowledge gaps and training needs •Training and educational initiatives •Awareness and knowledge building Leadership and strategic vision •Leadership’s role in adoption •Strategic vision and goal alignment Stakeholder engagement and communication •Communication as a tool for adoption •Stakeholder persuasion and buy-in Organizational structure and decision-making processes •Organizational dynamics and decision-making •Internal collaboration and process optimization Motivation, learning, and resource allocation •Motivation and openness to learning Table 2 (continued) TOE Factor Themes Sub-themes •Resource availability and allocation Environmental Regulatory and legislative environment •The Need for Legislation and Policies •Political and Social Influence on Regulation Resource allocation and financial investment •Funding and Financial Support •Human Resources and Knowledge Development Market and competition dynamics •Market Relevance and Competitive Landscape •Customer Expectations and Relationship Management Environmental and sustainability considerations •Energy and Environmental Impact •Sustainable Innovation and Social Impact Collaboration and networking •Collaboration with External Partners •Knowledge Sharing and Industry Influence Risk management and security concerns •Managing Risks and Threats •Pilot Projects and Incremental Adoption Temporal and contextual factors •Transition and Adoption Timeline •External Factors Affecting Adoption M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 6 Managers of both sectors need to make sense of BT when presenting it to stakeholders/government officials. This assessment helps managers hold their case for the need to adopt BT in front of top management to make their overall decision. The interviewees explained that the positive decision to adopt BT is also correlated with the distributed size of the organization. Integrating BT into already established systems may lead to complications in both contexts. Both sectors face compatibility issues in terms of current infrastructure. The public sector emphasized a greater need for system updates than did the private sector, but the problem persisted in both scenarios, adding up to the implementation costs. This challenge often involves legacy systems and would require, in both cases, extensive planning and technical adaptation so that the interface would be available to organizations and, at the same time, their clients, customers, and suppliers (the need for a double work interface). In the private sector, we have the example of a nuclear energy system and the need to update old systems. Moreover, the public sector stressed the need for incremental adoption from old systems to a BT system, prioritizing a structured plan that would ensure that BT is integrated without service disturbances. Similarly, for both sectors, as articulated in a handful of entries, there is also a need for use cases and pilot testing to minimize potential risk and failure when adopting BT at a larger scale, especially for the public sector. Both types of leaders (from the private and public sectors) recognize that this would be an effective way to adopt the technology and reduce change resistance at an organizational level. A final notable technological similarity is the shared concern for the environmental impact of BT due to energy consumption. This aspect has its roots in the common misconception that both sectors exercised, to some degree, in associating BT with Bitcoin (cryptocurrency). Because of BT’s poor word-of-mouth marketing in terms of sustainability and limited research initiatives by organizations, BT is seen as a high-energyconsumption technology by managers and leaders, which inspires skepticism in adoption decisions. Both the private and public sectors have sustainability goals in mind; therefore, they seek technical solutions that align with broader environmental objectives, making the responsible use of energy a priority. Organizational (O). On the basis of the organizational section of the TOE framework, the most important similarity between the sectors is the need for a visionary leader who would drive forward the BT adoption process. The interviewees mentioned that such leaders and managers are required to communicate the value of BT and to strategically guide its implementation in terms of resource allocation, employee engagement, and adoption initiation. The data on leadership state that BT projects with lower organizational resistance succeeded when the employees were put under less pressure. In one project, for example, the process was regarded as a secondary project. It made the task seem minor to the employees. Employees, therefore, work without panic or fear, resulting in minimal resistance to change. This would, therefore, imply that employees remained productive when the leadership downplayed the pressure and importance of a project, which decreased resistance. Another organizational need recurrently identified in the datasets has been the need for training and knowledge development. Both sectors face gaps on the technical front that may stir organizational resistance (higher resistance in the private sector than in the public sector). Training programs are essential to build internal know-how and provide employees with the required skills, be they employees on the back end or employees and clients on the front-end side. The accountability of employees, as a form of performance monitoring by both sectors, is again sought. It also relates to the need to have a small group that would test the aptitudes of BT in a pilot project. This means that both sectors want to ensure that BT projects meet the expectations of stakeholders and create value in terms of efficiency, quality, and return on investment quality. From a collaborative perspective, both sectors would desire the removal of silos between departments, which is why maximizing internal communication, supportive knowledge sharing, and collaboration during a potential change process was an important aspect for the interviewees. Because of the need to achieve enhanced cooperation during organizational change, some interviewees mentioned that their role as leaders would be accentuated in terms of engaging, encouraging and monitoring, and providing feedback to employees in a mentoring manner. Environment (E). The environmental similarities between the private and public sectors highlight the complexity of the policies and regulatory reality that impact blockchain deployment and capacity for scalability. In this context, both sectors are aware and agree that financial regulations, data privacy, and security values need to be maintained at high standards; even so, the common agreement is that the legislative context is not adapted to the new technological landscape resonating through the market, both at the national level and the European level. Fig. 2. Public sector codes frequency: Codes cloud. M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 7 This puts a hold on the implementation process of BT, especially for the private sector, when doing interagency collaborations inside the Eurozone with clients potentially interested in DLT. The height of government policies also heavily depends on public organizations, where interagency collaboration is often mandatory. For the sector, this creates a robust but rigid framework that ensures stability at the expense of innovation in the case of BT adoption. Partnerships between the public and private sectors, as well as networking, are also accentuated. The interviewees emphasized, on both sides, the need to facilitate knowledge sharing and BT expertise that would encourage supportive regulatory frameworks. Both sectors discussed that recurrent and lasting collaboration with different organizations would create a pool of resources that would reduce adoption barriers and help them gain insights and experience in the BT adoption process (the private sector emphasized specialists in BT, whereas the public sector referred to the private sector and investments in academic research and educational curricula on the subject). Through this narrative, we can conclude that even if BT is tailored to the specific needs of each sector in practice, both share specific challenges, risks, and priorities that offer them a degree of similarity. In the context of blockchain adoption, these mentions could be building blocks for encouraging the two sectors to further develop their communication and collaboration initiatives. Table 4 provides supporting quotations from the respondents. Differences in the BT adoption processes in the private and public sectors The private sector and the public sector approach are shaped by distinct operational structures and expectations in terms of regulations. These characteristics influence the strategy models for both organizations in terms of value creation alignment, resistance to change, and the methods of implementing those strategies. Technology (T). The technological differences between the sectors became visible during the assessment that the interviewees made regarding the infrastructure readiness of the organizations. The public sector mentioned often outdated infrastructure systems, some dating from 20 to 30 years ago, depending on the department or area of public administration. In this context, the public sector’s main concern is related to carefully measuring the compatibility of BT with the legacy systems of government operations, which now act as a governmental backbone that is trusted by both civilians and employees. This compatibility and the need for incremental adoption are required to ensure that the potential transfer of data and activities does not disrupt the public services that are essential to day-to-day activities and processes. Therefore, blockchain adoption in the public sector is characterized by a more cautious approach and a risk-averse mindset. Managers and employees delegated to such projects would need to test and evaluate the effectiveness of the technology repetitively and to ensure that beta testing is leanly adopted on a larger scale. In parallel, the private sector is oriented toward the need to optimize the operational efficiency of the business. This sector views BT more as a tool that could help with the high-demand real-time tracking of products and privacy management than an entire system. Its main outcomes focused on helping with scalability actions (where the size of the business requires it) and, most importantly, profit generation owing to its flexible Table 3 Public sector - TOE framework on themes. TOE factor Themes Sub-themes Technology Adoption readiness and technical feasibility •Infrastructure and Readiness •Technology readiness is positive in terms of technology •Pilot Testing and Incremental Adoption Security, privacy, and data management •Privacy and Data Transparency •Security and Trust Cost and financial viability •Cost Barriers and Savings Potential •Economic Justification and Efficiency Practical applications and use cases •Potential and Desired Outcomes •Functional Applications and Utility Technological challenges and constraints •Technical and Knowledge Barriers •Implementation Uncertainty and Readiness Scalability and Long-Term Viability •Scalability and Future Integration •Adaptation to Market Trends and Needs Flexibility and modularity •Adaptable Use Case Models •Iterative Learning and Practical Adjustments •Strategic Focus and Vision Policy, compliance, and regulatory adjustments •Infrastructure and Collaboration •Research and Problem-Solving Focus Organizational Leadership and decisionmaking •Visionary and Results-Oriented Leadership •Top-Down vs. Distributed Decision-Making Training, knowledge, and skills development •Education and Knowledge Building •Learning Through Practical Application •The need for knowledge and qualified professionals •Leaders are trying to make sense of BT Communication and collaboration •Internal and External Collaboration •Effective Communication for Change Management •Leadership Development and Guidance •Collaboration and Teamwork Motivation, rewards, and employee engagement •Incentives and Motivation •Employee Engagement and Empowerment Overcoming resistance and change management •Addressing Resistance to Change •Adapting Organizational Mindsets Accountability and performance management •Accountability Structures •Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Practical implementation and knowledge application •Utilizing Use Cases and Examples •Practical Application and Innovation Environmental Partnerships and collaboration •Public-private partnerships and Networking for Knowledge Development •Cross-Sector and Organizational Collaboration Legislation, regulation, and accountability •Need for Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks •Ethics, Accountability, and Compliance Citizen engagement and education •Raising Public Awareness and Understanding •Social and Cultural Considerations Table 3 (continued) TOE factor Themes Sub-themes Resources and collaboration •Financial and Human Resource Investment •Infrastructure and Local Expertise Technological fit and market relevance •Adaptation and Scalability for Market Needs •Barriers and Challenges in Adoption M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 8 Andoni, M., Robu, V., Flynn, D., Abram, S., Geach, D., Jenkins, D., … Peacock, A. (2019). Blockchain technology in the energy sector: A systematic review of challenges and opportunities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 100, 143–174. Andrews, R., Boyne, G., & Walker, R. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 301–319. Asa, K. J., & Zosu, S. J. (2023). Enhancing procurement and supply chain management for sustainable development through digital transformation. International Journal of African Research Sustainability Studies, 2(2), 62–76. Awa, H. O., Ojiabo, O., & Orokor, L. (2017). Integrated technology-organizationenvironment (T-O-E) taxonomies for technology adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 30(6), 893–921. Awa, H. O., Ukoha, O., & Emecheta, B. C. (2016). Using TOE theoretical framework to study the adoption of ERP solution. Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1196571. Baker, J. (2011). The Technology–Organization–Environment framework. Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society, 1, 231–245. Batubara, F. R., Ubacht, J., & Janssen, M. (2018). Challenges of blockchain technology adoption for e-government: A systematic literature review. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age (pp. 1–9). Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39, 97–122. Cagigas, D., Clifton, J., Diaz-Fuentes, D., Fern´ andez-Guti´ errez, M., & Harpes, C. (2023). Blockchain in government: Toward an evaluation framework. Policy Design and Practice, 6, 397–414. Cappai, M. (2023). The role of private and public regulation in the case study of cryptoassets: The Italian move towards participatory regulation. Computer Law & Security Review, 49, Article 105831. Carson, B., Romanelli, G., Walsh, P., & Zhumaev, A. (2018). Blockchain beyond the hype: What is the strategic business value. McKinsey & Company, 1, 1–13. Charlebois, S., Latif, N., Ilahi, I., Sarker, B., Music, J., & Vezeau, J. (2024). Digital traceability in agri-food supply chains: A comparative analysis of OECD member countries. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 13, 1075. Chittipaka, V., Kumar, S., Sivarajah, U., Bowden, J. L.-H., & Baral, M. M. (2023). Blockchain technology for supply chains operating in emerging markets: An empirical examination of technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework. Annals of Operations Research, 327, 465–492. Chu, H., Zhang, P., Dong, H., Xiao, Y., Ji, S., & Li, W. (2023). A survey on smart contract vulnerabilities: Data sources, detection and repair. Information and Software Technology, 159, Article 107221. Clemente-Almendros, J. A., Nicoara-Popescu, D., & Pastor-Sanz, I. (2024). Digital transformation in SMEs: Understanding its determinants and size heterogeneity. Technology in Society, 77, Article 102483. Cui, M., Feng, T., & Wang, H. (2023). How can blockchain be integrated into renewable energy? –A bibliometric-based analysis. Energy Strategy Reviews, 50, Article 101207. Daidai, F., & Tamnine, L. (2023). Blockchain technology in finance: A literature review. In S. Motahhir, & B. Bossoufi (Eds.), Digital technologies and applications (pp. 218–229). Springer Nature Switzerland. Dehghani, M., William Kennedy, R., Mashatan, A., Rese, A., & Karavidas, D. (2022). High interest, low adoption. A mixed-method investigation into the factors influencing organisational adoption of blockchain technology. Journal of Business Research, 149, 393–411. Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 80–88. European Union. (2024). EU blockchain ecosystem developments 3”. EU Blockchain Observatory and Forum - European Commission. published by theRetrieved from https://blockchain-observatory.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-blockchain-ecosystem-dev elopments-3-published-eu-blockchain-observatory-and-forum-2024-05-21_en. Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. Ganguly, K. K. (2024). Understanding the challenges of the adoption of blockchain technology in the logistics sector: The TOE framework. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36, 457–471. Gioia, D., Corley, K., & Hamilton, A. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 15–31. G¨ okalp, E., G¨ okalp, M., & G¨ okalp, S. (2020). Blockchain-based Supply Chain management: Understanding the determinants of adoption in the context of organizations. Information Systems Management, 39, 1–22. Gulen, K., & Karaagac, A. (2024). Agricultural food supply chain with blockchain technology: A review on Turkey. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 16(2), 013–028. Gupta, A., Singh, R. K., & Kamal, M. M. (2024). Blockchain technology adoption for secured and carbon neutral logistics operations: Barrier intensity index framework. Annals of Operations Research, 1–34. Hafeez, S., Shahzad, K., & De Silva, M. (2025). Enhancing digital transformation in SMEs: The dynamic capabilities of innovation intermediaries within ecosystems. Long Range Planning, 58(3), Article 102525. Haq, S. H. U., Dan, S., & Shahzad, K. (2024). Leadership competencies and blockchain implementation in public sector organizations: A sensemaking approach. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Haroun, M. H., Gohar, N., & Hanna, H. A. (2020). TOE model: Adoption of blockchain. The Business & Management Review, 11, 179–185. Hossain Faruk, M. J., Alam, F., Islam, M., & Rahman, A. (2024). Transforming online voting: A novel system utilizing blockchain and biometric verification for enhanced security, privacy, and transparency. Cluster Computing, 27(4), 4015–4034. Irani, Z., Abril, R. M., Weerakkody, V., Omar, A., & Sivarajah, U. (2023). The impact of legacy systems on digital transformation in European public administration: Lesson learned from a multi case analysis. Government Information Quarterly, 40, Article 101784. Junchairussamee, S., & Kraiwanit, T. (2024). Bridging the technology-government policy divide: Understanding the acceptance of blockchain adoption in Thailand’s agriculture. AU-GSB e-Journal, 17, 73–84. Juszczyk, O., & Shahzad, K. (2022). Blockchain technology for renewable energy: Principles, applications and prospects. Energies, 15(13), 4603. Kassen, M. (2024). Blockchain and public service delivery: A lifetime cross-referenced model for e-government. Enterprise Information Systems, 18, Article 2317175. Kayani, U., & Hasan, F. (2024). Unveiling cryptocurrency impact on financial markets and traditional banking systems: Lessons for sustainable blockchain and interdisciplinary collaborations. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17, 58. Khalfan, M., Azizi, N., Haass, O., Maqsood, T., & Ahmed, I. (2022). Blockchain technology: Potential applications for public sector e-procurement and project management. Sustainability, 14, 5791. Koster, F., & Borgman, H. S. (2020). New kid on the block! understanding blockchain adoption in the public sector. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Kusi, S. Y., Shahzad, K., & Dan, S. (2024). Blockchain technology, leadership competencies, and organizational change: A conceptual exploration and future research agenda. Trust and artificial intelligence (pp. 10–25). Routledge. Li, L., Wu, J., & Cui, W. (2023). A review of blockchain cross-chain technology. IET Blockchain, 3, 149–158. Llano, E. A., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Haapanen, L. (2024). Blockchain for the circular economy: Implications for public governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Lustenberger, M., Maleˇ sevi´ c, S., & Spychiger, F. (2021). Ecosystem readiness: Blockchain adoption is driven externally. Frontiers in Blockchain, 4. Mahula, S., Tan, E., Crompvoets, J., & Timmers, P. (2025). What motivates public sector organisations to use blockchain? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 38 (1), 118–138. Malik, S., Chadhar, M., Chetty, M., & Vatanasakdakul, S. (2022). Adoption of blockchain technology: Exploring the factors affecting organizational decision. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 1–14. Manzoor, R., Sahay, B. S., & Singh, S. K. (2022). Blockchain technology in supply chain management: An organizational theoretic overview and research agenda. Annals of Operations Research, 1–48. MAXQDA. (2024). MAXQDA for Windows and Mac [Computer software]. https://www. maxqda.com/download-now. Mustafa, G., Rafiq, W., Jhamat, N., Arshad, Z., & Rana, F. A. (2024). Blockchain-based governance models in e-government: A comprehensive framework for legal, technical, ethical and security considerations. International Journal of Law and Management, 67, 37–55. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Available https://bitc oin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. Rahman, M. H., Yeoh, W., & Pal, S. (2024). Exploring factors influencing blockchain adoption’s effectiveness in organizations for generating business value: A systematic literature review and thematic analysis. Enterprise Information Systems, 18, Article 2379830. Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Zrelli, I., Süle, E., & Iranmanesh, M. (2024). Blockchain technology in the renewable energy sector: A co-word analysis of academic discourse. Heliyon, 10, Article e29600. Ressi, D., Romanello, R., Piazza, C., & Rossi, S. (2024). AI-enhanced blockchain technology: A review of advancements and opportunities. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 225. Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P., Scholl, H. J., Bolívar, R., & Scholl, H. J (2019). Mapping potential impact areas of blockchain use in the public sector. Information Polity, 24, 359–378. Roulston, K., & Choi, M. (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative data collection. SAGE Publications Ltd. Sanda, O., Pavlidis, M., & Polatidis, N. (2022). A regulatory readiness assessment framework for blockchain adoption in healthcare. Digital, 2, 65–87. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1907. Shahzad, K. (2020). Blockchain and organizational characteristics: Towards business model innovation. In Advances in Creativity, Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Communication of Design: Proceedings of the AHFE 2020 Virtual Conferences (pp. 80–86). Springer International Publishing. Shahzad, K., Dan, S., Imran, F., Holtkamp, P., Niemi, M. K., & Meyer, M. (2024b). Limits of open innovation during the organizational change: A case study of a partner campus. R&D Management, 54(5), 1063–1086. Shahzad, K., Hafeez, S., Heimo, T., M¨ aenp¨ a¨ a, A., Mubarak, M. F., & Evans, R. (2025a). Developing the innovation capabilities of SMEs: The role of intermediary firms in knowledge ecosystems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 72, 604–618. Shahzad, K., Helo, P., Ranta, M., & Nousiainen, E. (2024a). Blockchain technology for operational excellence and supply chain resilience: A framework based on use cases and an architecture demonstration. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1–18. Shahzad, K., Imran, F., & Butt, A. (2025b). Digital transformation and changes in organizational structure: Empirical evidence from industrial organizations. ResearchTechnology Management, 68(3), 25–40. Sharma, P., Jindal, R., & Borah, M. D. (2022). A review of blockchain-based applications and challenges. Wireless Personal Communications, 123, 1201–1243. M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 15 Sorsa, K., & Salmi-Tolonen, T. (2021). Deregulation and proactive law as regulative innovations: A case study from Finland. In A. Masson, & G. Robinson (Eds.), Mapping legal innovation: Trends and perspectives (pp. 357–381). Springer International Publishing. Sousa, M. J. (2023). Blockchain as a driver for transformations in the public sector. Policy Design and Practice, 6, 415–432. Spanos, A., & Kantzavelou, I. (2023). A blockchain-based electronic voting system: EtherVote. Sung, C. S., & Park, J. Y. (2021). Understanding of blockchain-based identity management system adoption in the public sector. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 34, 1481–1505. Suwanposri, C., Bhatiasevi, V., & Thanakijsombat, T. (2021). Drivers of blockchain adoption in financial and supply chain enterprises. Global Business Review. Tafuro, A., Dammacco, G., & Costa, A. (2023). A conceptual study on the role of blockchain in sustainable development of public–private partnership. Administrative Sciences, 13, 175. Taherdoost, H. (2022). A critical review of blockchain acceptance models—Blockchain technology adoption frameworks and applications. Computers, 11, 24. Tan, E., Dan, S., & Shahzad, K. (2025). Bridging the chasm between “what could be” and “what is”: The impact of blockchain technologies on public service management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 38(1), 1–11. Tan, E., Kleizen, B., Simonofski, A., Willem, P., & Sabbe, M. (2022b). Digital (R) evolution in Belgian Federal Government: An open governance ecosystem for big data, artificial intelligence, and blockchain (DIGI4FED). Database systems for advanced applications (DASFAA 2020), pt i (Vol. 12112). Springer. Tan, E., Mahula, S., & Crompvoets, J. (2022a). Blockchain governance in the public sector: A conceptual framework for public management. Government Information Quarterly, 39, Article 101625. Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). The processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books. Toufaily, E., Zalan, T., & Dhaou, S. B. (2021). A framework of blockchain technology adoption: An investigation of challenges and expected value. Information & Management, 58, Article 103444. Tripathi, G., Ahad, M. A., & Casalino, G. (2023). A comprehensive review of blockchain technology: Underlying principles and historical background with future challenges. Decision Analytics Journal, 9, Article 100344. Upadhyay, N. (2020). Demystifying blockchain: A critical analysis of challenges, applications and opportunities. International Journal of Information Management, 54, Article 102120. Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J., & Rit, M. (2019). Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains? International Journal of Production Economics, 211, 221–236. Wolfond, G. (2017). A blockchain ecosystem for digital identity: Improving service delivery in Canada’s public and private sectors. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7, 35–40. Wong, L. W., Tan, G. W. H., Lee, V. H., Ooi, K. B., & Sohal, A. (2020). Unearthing the determinants of blockchain adoption in supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 58, 2100–2123. Xanthopoulou, P. (2022). Blockchain and the digital transformation of the public sector: The Greek experience. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 32, 558–570. Xanthopoulou, P., Antoniadis, I., & Saprikis, V. (2023). Blockchain adoption in public sector: A value-driven approach. In Communications of International Proceedings. Yan, Z., Zhao, X., Liu, Y.(Alison), & Luo, X.(Robert) (2024). Blockchain-driven decentralized identity management: An interdisciplinary review and research agenda. Information & Management, 61, Article 104026. Zhang, Y., Tavalaei, M. M., Parry, G., & Zhou, P. (2024). Evolution or involution? A systematic literature review of organisations’ blockchain adoption factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 208, Article 123710. M.P. Benchis et al. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 10 (2025) 100746 16