Volume 24 Issue 2 Article 5 
June 2022 
Will Blockchain Really Impact Your Business Model? Empirical 
Evidence from Slovenian SMEs 
Horst Treiblmaier 
Modul University, Vienna, Austria, horst.treiblmaier@modul.ac.at 
Žan Špan 
University of Vienna, Master Student, Vienna, Austria 
Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home 
 Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Management 
Information Systems Commons, Management Sciences and Quantitative Methods Commons, and the 
Technology and Innovation Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Treiblmaier, H., & Špan, Ž. (2022). Will Blockchain Really Impact Your Business Model? Empirical Evidence 
from Slovenian SMEs. Economic and Business Review, 24(2), 132-140. https://doi.org/10.15458/
2335-4216.1302 
This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business 
Review. 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Will Blockchain Really Impact Your Business Model?
Empirical Evidence from Slovenian SMEs
Horst Treiblmaier a,*, 
Zan 
Span b
a Modul University, Vienna, Austria
b University of Vienna, Master Student, Vienna, Austria
Abstract
In this paper, we use the widely popular business model canvas, which was previously adapted for the blockchain
environment, to assess the experiences and perceptions of Slovenian small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) per-
taining to blockchain technologies. The results reveal that SMEs expect applications built on blockchain technologies to
have a highly positive effect on numerous aspects of their business model. This positive evaluation is even stronger
among companies that already have experience with blockchain technologies.
Keywords: Blockchain, Distributed ledger technology, Business model canvas, Survey
JEL classification: M00, O32, L00
1 Blockchain evolution and controversies
T he emergence of blockchain caused a brief butturbulent technological evolution that has
lasted for several years and witnessed numerous
heated debates, featuring widely conflicting opin-
ions that frequently reveal an insufficient under-
standing of the underlying concepts, technologies,
and potentials. Contrary to widespread belief,
blockchain neither manifested itself first in Bitcoin
nor is it a uniform technology that can be easily
defined. The development of the fundamental
building blocks of blockchain, such as linked time-
stamping, digital cash, proof of work, byzantine
fault tolerance, public keys as identities, and smart
contracts (Narayanan & Clark, 2017), preceded Bit-
coin by a couple of decades. An early application of
a blockchain can be witnessed in the New York
Times, which has published a chronological chain of
hashed data invented by cryptographers Haber and
Stornetta since 1995 (Oberhaus, 2018). The crypto-
currency Bitcoin made a giant leap in 2009 by
enabling the sharing of value via the internet, but it
was not until the middle of the following decade
that seminal publications began to identify
numerous business applications of blockchain that
span industry sectors as diverse as finance, energy,
healthcare, transportation, entertainment, tourism,
and public governance (Swan, 2015). During the
following hype, blockchain was alternatively praised
as a “revolution” (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016) or
condemned as “one of the most overhyped tech-
nologies ever” (Roubini as cited in Kharpal, 2018).
Blockchain technology was quite often considered
as some single technology in this debate rather than
the aforementioned combination of technologies
(and several others) that allow for the creation of
various types of distributed ledgers with different
characteristics. The objects of investigation should
therefore be the features that are created by a given
combination and their impact on business processes
and the economy in general. Additionally, contro-
versy persists regarding which features blockchain
applications must have. Some argue that truly
innovative blockchain solutions need to be public
and permissionless ledgers that create trust through
the network rather than having dedicated entities to
validate transactions (Antonopoulos, 2017), while
Received 14 March 2021; accepted 19 May 2021.
Available online 1 June 2022.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: horst.treiblmaier@modul.ac.at (H. Treiblmaier), zan.span1@gmail.com (
Z. 
Span).
https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1302
2335-4216/© 2022 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
business can also reap benefits by creating shared
applications that are managed by a trusted con-
sortium (Lacity, 2020). In light of this debate and the
constant technological progress that regularly aug-
ments different layers of the blockchain technolo-
gies stack, which consists of the internet, blockchain
protocol, application layer (e.g. smart contracts), and
the user experience, we refrain from referring to
specific implementations in this paper and rather
focus on the underlying characteristics that can be
enabled by blockchain applications such as immu-
tability, transparency, programmability, decentrali-
sation, and distributed trust (Treiblmaier, 2019).
2 Predicting and assessing the impact of
blockchain
The growing interest in blockchain and the pro-
liferation of creative application scenarios have
triggered a need to embed the technology within
broader frameworks, models, and theories that
enable the systematic and critical assessment of its
impact for SMEs (Morgan-Thomas, 2016). Such
frameworks can be of an academic nature and allow
for the application of well-accepted academic the-
ories such as principal agent theory, transaction cost
theory, resource-based view of the firm, or network
theory (Treiblmaier, 2018). Other frameworks have
more applied roots such as value analysis for
blockchain adoption (Angelis & Ribeiro da Silva,
2019) or straightforward decision trees to answer the
question of whether or not to adopt blockchain in
the first place (Pedersen et al., 2019). One of the
most prominent frameworks to comprehensively
visualize and assess a business’ building blocks is
the business model canvas, which consists of nine
boxes that describe a company’s infrastructure (key
activities, key resources, key partners), market of-
fering (value proposition), customers (customer
segments, customer relationships, channels), and
financial situation (cost structure, revenue stream)
(Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). The business model
canvas has previously been identified as an impor-
tant tool for entrepreneurship education (Sarooghi
et al., 2019; Thrane et al., 2016). As can be seen in
Fig. 1, this tool was modified by Morkunas et al.
(2019) to account for the idiosyncrasies of blockchain
technologies. In their paper, they detail how block-
chain technologies can impact each of the nine
building blocks of the business model canvas and
conclude with several important questions that
managers and executives should ask themselves
when evaluating the business case for blockchain
adoption. These questions include, amongst others,
the value contribution of blockchain, its fit with an
organisation’s strategy and goals, the existing re-
sources, the impact on current business relation-
ships, the overall value proposition, and the
integration with existing ecosystems. In this paper,
we put the proposed framework to the test by
empirically assessing the experiences and expecta-
tions of SMEs.
3 Blockchain experiences and perceptions of
Slovenian SMEs
According to the European Commission (2019),
SMEs account for 64.5% of value added and 72% of
employment in the Slovenian economy. From 2014
to 2018, Slovenian SMEs’ value added rose by
33.5%, which exceeded the growth of large firms
(30.8%). Additionally, the report points out that the
Fig. 1. Blockchain and the business model canvas. Source: Morkunas et al., 2019; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:132e140 133
“professional, scientific, and technical activities
sector has generated consistent strong growth” and
that “many Slovenian firms have successfully scaled
up their operations in recent years” (p. 3). Given the
small size of the country and its relatively homog-
enous structure, the Slovenian market therefore
provides an ideal testbed to scrutinize the adoption
of novel technologies and their economic impact on
SMEs. Furthermore, restricting our sample to one
specific country eliminates distortions that may
arise from external contingency factors such as na-
tional policies and legislation.
Inorder to select appropriate samplingunits, a list of
organisations was selected from an online portal that
serves as a platform that makes Slovenian SMEs
visible for clients as well as partners. The portal in-
cludes companies from all industries and covers the
whole territory of Slovenia. The survey was adminis-
tered via e-mail to 200 randomly selected small and
medium-sized companies in August and September
2020. Each of the firms on the list was contacted indi-
vidually, and follow-upphone callswere conducted to
ensure a high rate of participation.
A total of 118 companies filled out the survey,
resulting in a response rate of 59%. The majority of
them are in manufacturing (71), followed by trans-
portation and logistics (32), financial services (10), and
commerce (5). 38 of the responding companies have 5
or fewer employees, 63 have 6 to 10 employees, and 17
report having 11 ormore employees. Additionally, we
asked about prior experience with blockchain tech-
nologies. 19 out of the 118 responding companies
indicated that they have previous experience with
blockchain,whichmeans that theyhaveeither already
implemented applications or are currently in the
process of doing so. We asked firms to indicate their
level of agreement with a number of statements on a
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1: “strongly
agree”, 2: “agree”, 3: “neutral”, 4: “disagree”, 5:
“strongly disagree”). The respective items correspond
closely to the criteria suggested by Morkunas et al.
(2019) with only minor changes made to achieve
greater clarity and understandability following an
initial pretesting. The findings are discussed in some
detail in the subsequent sections, and the itemswithin
each section are ordered by descending level of
agreement. Additionally, we compare the answers for
all items between those companies that have experi-
encewith blockchain and those that donot. In order to
account for the differences in sample size, the signif-
icance tests conducted (i.e. Welch’s t-test) did not as-
sume equal variances.
3.1 Key partnerships
One of the most frequently mentioned features of
blockchain technology is its ability to transform
basic market structures by enabling P2P (peer-to-
peer) networks that can function without dedicated
intermediaries. However, this does not mean that
trust becomes obsolete; instead, it simply shifts from
powerful intermediaries toward other entities, such
as the majority of network nodes, programmers of
smart contracts, or a consortium. As is the case in
the following sections, the average perceptions of
the SMEs were positive for all of the items (a mean
value of >3 would indicate a negative sentiment),
and the perception of those SMEs with blockchain
experience was more positive than that of the SMEs
without any prior involvement. As can be seen in
Table 1, this difference is statistically significant for
all of the items. The most-valued property of
blockchain turns out to be the facilitation of pay-
ments, which is presumably regarded as the best-
proven use case of a blockchain application due to
the widespread popularity of Bitcoin. Additionally,
the SMEs value blockchain for its ability to tighten
relationships in supply chains through the removal
of intermediaries and facilitation of communication
by shared access to data (Saberi et al., 2019). Shared
ledgers also foster the integrity of data, which can
either be tamper evident (i.e. any tampering will be
noticed) or tamper proof (i.e. an object cannot be
tampered with). The SMEs were most sceptical
about blockchain’s potential to eliminate lengthy
processes as is widely predicted in supply chains
through the removal of paperwork; again, scepti-
cism of this claim was higher among companies
without blockchain experience than among those
with previous experience.
Table 1. The impact of blockchain on key partnerships.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Blockchain facilitates payments. 1.47 (.64) 1.00 (.00) 1.56 (.66) <.01
Blockchain creates tighter relationships within the supply chain. 1.72 (.80) 1.00 (.00) 1.86 (.81) <.01
Blockchain serves as a shared communication network between actors
in the supply chain.
2.06 (.95) 1.05 (.23) 2.25 (.91) <.01
Blockchain improves data integrity. 2.15 (.97) 1.00 (.00) 2.37 (.90) <.01
Blockchain eliminates lengthy processes. 2.77 (1.10) 1.32 (.48) 3.05 (.95) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience.
134 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:132e140
3.2 Key activities
Key activities encompass actions that a company
performs to provide value to its consumers. In
this respect, blockchain promises the transformation
of existing relationships, most notably by substitut-
ing traditional hierarchical structures with P2P
networks in which information flows are not
controlled and filtered by traditional intermediaries
(see Table 2). Instead, new types of intermediaries
will emerge and take over new roles in blockchain-
based economic transactions (Zamani & Giaglis,
2018). All participating companies regard block-
chain to be an enabler for the creation of peer-to-
peer networks. Additionally, there is a strong level
of agreement that blockchain will substantially
transform the way that business is conducted in the
future, however, this confidence is significantly
higher among companies with blockchain experi-
ence than those without blockchain experience.
3.3 Key resources
Key resources, which may be physical, financial,
intellectual, or human, constitute the underlying
foundation for creating value, reaching out to mar-
kets, maintaining customer relationships, and, ulti-
mately, earning revenues (Morkunas et al., 2019). In
this respect, the core strength of blockchain is its
capability to create data records that are tamper
proof or at least tamper evident, which facilitates
auditing, documentation, and verification. Taking
this one step further, the trusted third-party auditor
can be replaced by a smart contract that runs on a
decentralized network (Fan et al., 2020). As can be
seen in Table 3, key resources is the business canvas
building block for which the gap between block-
chain-experienced and inexperienced companies is
the biggest. While the former strongly agree that this
technology constitutes an important key resource,
the latter are more sceptical in their assessment.
3.4 Value proposition
A company’s value proposition comprises activ-
ities that create value for its customers. Enhanced
verifiability is especially important for supply chain
management, since it helps to create trusted sys-
tems. In food supply chains, for example, it might
turn out to be a key enabler to create transparency
and to get consumers actively involved (Rejeb,
Keogh, Zailani, et al., 2020). The application of
blockchain in the supply chain has been predicted
to reduce numerous types of risks, including
financial risk through origin assurance, psychologi-
cal and social risks through authenticity assurance,
functional risk through custody assurance, and
physical risk through integrity assurance (Mon-
tecchi et al., 2019). In a similar vein, smart contracts
can automate and facilitate business processes;
quicker and cheaper transactions help businesses to
offer their services at a lower cost and thereby stay
Table 2. The impact of blockchain on key activities.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Blockchain enables the establishment of peer-to-peer networks. 1.00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) n/a
Blockchain implementation is followed by a transformation of business processes. 1.14 (.34) 1.00 (.00) 1.16 (.37) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience.
Table 3. The impact of blockchain on key resources.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Blockchain makes audits easier. 2.32 (.93) 1.05 (.23) 2.57 (.81) <.01
Blockchain offers enhanced documentation practices. 2.35 (.91) 1.11 (.32) 2.59 (.78) <.01
Blockchain enhances and facilitates the process of verification. 2.37 (.95) 1.00 (.00) 2.64 (.80) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience.
Table 4. The impact of blockchain on value propositions.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Blockchain technologies offer enhanced verifiability. 1.16 (.37) 1.00 (.00) 1.19 (.40) <.01
Blockchain technology enables quicker and cheaper transactions. 1.17 (.38) 1.00 (.00) 1.20 (.40) <.01
By using smart contracts, organisations have less of a need for third parties
serving as intermediaries.
1.54 (.69) 1.05 (.23) 1.64 (.71) <.01
By implementing blockchain, organisations can benefit from access to
new services and products.
2.09 (.80) 1.58 (.69) 2.19 (.78) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:132e140 135
competitive. The data in Table 4 illustrate that there
is a high level of agreement among SMEs regarding
these potentials. Their assessment of whether or-
ganisations will be able to benefit from access to
new services and products is more reserved,
particularly among companies with no prior block-
chain experience.
3.5 Customer relationships
From a customer relationship perspective, block-
chain has been predicted to reinforce trust and
transparency, enhance privacy protection, empower
digital marketing security, and enable creative loy-
alty programs (Rejeb, Keogh & Treiblmaier, 2020).
As can be seen in Table 5, on average the companies
acknowledge blockchain’s potential to create and
strengthen customer relationships as evidenced by
the more positive evaluations from those companies
that have already gained some experience with
blockchain. Transparency can be increased by
allowing customers access to share data stored on a
distributed ledger. This does not necessarily mean
that all data must be made accessible, but dedicated
roles can be assigned that allow consumers to access
those data that are relevant for them. The emer-
gence of customer relationship management has led
to highly complex processes that can be automated
through the use of sophisticated software applica-
tions. In this regard, blockchain can enable data
marketplaces in which consumers not only control
their own personal data, but can also capitalize on
the use of such data (Travizano et al., 2020). As
opposed to companies without blockchain experi-
ence, those with this experience are considerably
more convinced that blockchain will lead to the
demotion of third-party providers of customer
relationship management services. The same is true
for the introduction of self-service options, which
might include the aforementioned management of
consumers’ own personal data.
3.6 Channels
Companies reach their customers via a multitude
of different channels, which might be online or
offline. Table 6 shows that the interview partners
strongly believe that blockchain technologies enable
new communication channels. Once again, this can
be seen as a consequence of removing in-
termediaries, which might open up new opportu-
nities for companies to directly get in touch with
their customers. Another consequence of this
development might be that the relevant data is
stored and analysed at the conversation or trans-
action endpoints, otherwise known as customers
and companies, rather than being used by powerful
intermediaries to build their own business models
on these data. By facilitating participation in devel-
opment projects via application programming in-
terfaces (APIs) and software development kits
(SDKs) (Morkunas et al., 2019), companies can
relatively easily join sophisticated ecosystems that
open up new channels for them.
3.7 Customer segments
A customer segment refers to a relatively homog-
enous group that can be differentiated by common
characteristics so that it can be addressed via a
specific marketing strategy and channel. It is espe-
cially the payment potentials of blockchain, often
referred to as payment tokens or cryptocurrencies,
that are predicted to facilitate access to global
Table 5. The impact of blockchain on customer relationships.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Blockchain offers more transparency for customers. 2.05 (.89) 1.11 (.32) 2.23 (.86) <.01
Blockchain allows for the automation of multiple processes in customer
relationship management.
2.06 (.88) 1.26 (.45) 2.21 (.86) <.01
Blockchain reduces the need for third-party service providers. 2.36 (.99) 1.21 (.42) 2.58 (.92) <.01
Blockchain introduces self-service options in customer relationship management. 2.62 (.84) 1.84 (.69) 2.77 (.78) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience.
Table 6. The impact of blockchain on channels.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Implementing blockchain technologies establishes new channels of communication. 1.19 (.43) 1.00 (.00) 1.22 (.46) <.01
Blockchain allows the development of new APIs and SDKs. 1.99 (.77) 1.47 (.51) 2.09 (.77) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience.
136 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:132e140
commerce for billions of unbanked and under-
banked people all over the world. Additionally,
blockchain might also turn out to be a viable means
to address customer groups that have specific pri-
vacy concerns or are interested in capitalizing on the
use of their personal data (Travizano et al., 2020).
Finally, blockchain technologies can also trigger
innovative product and service offerings that might
appeal to new customer segments. Table 7 illustrates
an overall positive agreement of all companies and,
once again, those companies that are experienced in
blockchain express a higher level of agreement than
those that have not yet tried out the technology.
3.8 Cost structure
Companies face a huge number of different costs
in operating their business model. Blockchain is
frequently touted as a means to reduce costs in
general, but a more differentiated perspective is
advisable. The results in Table 8 reveal that there is
overwhelming agreement from all companies, in-
dependent of whether they have blockchain expe-
rience or not, that blockchain is a suitable means to
reduce transaction costs. This is in line with its po-
tential to facilitate processes, to automate or simplify
transactions, and to reduce costs associated with
negotiations and searching for resources, which are
predicted in conceptual studies (Treiblmaier, 2018).
At the same time, there is widespread agreement
that the introduction of blockchain solutions ne-
cessitates heavy investment in both IT/software and
personnel development. Consequently, all com-
panies agree that the introduction of blockchain
actually increases IT costs. In summary, SMEs
perceive that substantial initial investments are
needed to later reap the financial benefits of block-
chain-based solutions.
3.9 Revenue streams
Revenue streams include the inflow of proceeds
from customers, which can be split into one-time
payments or recurring revenues. Again, it is the
removal of intermediaries that companies perceive
as the major driver of increased transaction reve-
nues (see Table 9). Additionally, our survey data
also confirm the overall positive perception of SMEs
in regard to the opportunity to increase service
revenues through blockchain technologies. This
especially pertains to offerings that cannot be
offered without relying on distributed ledgers, as is
the case when specific privacy and security options
or the monetisation of personal data are concerned.
Additionally, blockchain-based technologies can be
used to raise capital with relative ease as
Table 8. The impact of blockchain on cost structures.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Blockchain reduces transaction costs. 1.00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) n/a
Blockchain increases the costs of IT/software and personnel development*. 1.47 (.72) 1.00 (.00) 1.57 (.76) <.01
Blockchain reduces negotiation costs. 1.87 (.87) 1.00 (.00) 2.04 (.86) <.01
Blockchain reduces the costs for searching for resources. 2.33 (.97) 1.21 (.42) 2.55 (.90) <.01
Blockchain reduces Information Technology costs. 4.03 (1.02) 2.95 (1.31) 4.23 (.81) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience
* Reverse coding.
Table 9. The impact of blockchain on revenue streams.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Blockchain increases transaction revenues as it eliminates the need for intermediaries. 1.22 (.42) 1.00 (.00) 1.26 (.44) <.01
Blockchain has the potential to increase service revenues. 1.85 (.87) 1.11 (.32) 1.99 (.87) <.01
Blockchain introduces new options for crowdfunding. 2.62 (.89) 1.47 (.61) 2.84 (.75) <.01
Blockchain enables or increases recurring revenues via license agreements and
system subscriptions.
2.79 (.99) 1.26 (.45) 3.08 (.78) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience.
Table 7. The impact of blockchain on customer segments.
total sample bc exp no bc exp sig
Blockchain enables companies to reach new customers. 2.25 (.96) 1.11 (.32) 2.46 (.88) <.01
Blockchain allows companies to reach new customer segments. 2.45 (1.01) 1.26 (.45) 2.68 (.92) <.01
Note: 1: “strongly agree” … 5: “strongly disagree”
bc exp: blockchain experience … no bc exp: no blockchain experience.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:132e140 137
demonstrated by the emergence of the so-called
initial coin offerings (ICOs) (Bogusz et al., 2020) that
were soon followed by more strictly regulated ways
of fundraising such as equity token offerings (ETOs)
and security token offerings (STOs) (Kranz et al.,
2019). Finally, recurring revenues can be simplified
through the deployment of smart contracts that
allow for the automated execution of pre-defined
contractual clauses. Once again, all of these options
are very positively assessed by those companies that
exhibit blockchain competence. Those without such
experience see the main potential in eliminating
intermediaries and increasing service revenues and
are rather sceptical about crowdfunding opportu-
nities and recurring revenues.
4 An overall assessment of blockchain
technologies
The results of our analyses are summarised in
Fig. 2. To provide a non-distorted picture, the full
range of the scale is shown from “strongly agree” at
the centre of the circle to “strongly disagree” at the
outer circumference. Our findings illustrate an
inherently positive attitude of SMEs toward block-
chain technology. Interestingly, this attitude is even
more positive for those companies that have block-
chain experience (inner blue ring), ranging in value
from 1.00 (key activities) to 2.23 (cost structure,
taking into account the reverse coding of cost in-
creases in software and personnel development).
Those SMEs without blockchain experience (outer
orange ring) show a more negative attitude, but it is
noteworthy that their range of answers is also highly
optimistic, ranging from 1.08 (key activities) to 2.67
(cost structure). As we have shown in the tables
above, almost all of the differences between these
two groups are statistically significant. Interestingly,
all the assessments were positive with the exception
of a general agreement that blockchain imple-
mentations increase IT costs in general and software
and personnel development in particular as well as
the critical assessment by blockchain-inexperienced
companies of blockchain’s potential to reduce the
time needed to conduct lengthy processes.
5 The road ahead
This is one of the first quantitative empirical sur-
veys that assesses the perception of blockchain
technologies using a representative sample of
companies. In our survey, we focus on Slovenian
SMEs to eliminate the impact of external contin-
gency factors such as national legislation or funding
policies. We especially consider the specific needs of
small and medium-sized companies and evaluate
the general sentiment toward the deployment of
blockchain by using a relatively homogeneous
sample. The application of the blockchain business
model framework helped us to explore the suit-
ability of a tool that is widely recognised among
academics and practitioners. Based on these
Fig. 2. Assessment of blockchain’s potential to impact key business areas.
138 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:132e140
findings, we encourage future empirical studies that
further investigate whether blockchain adoption
helps companies to become and remain successful
and if our findings hold across national borders.
Additionally, future studies might be based on more
objective measurements such as Return on Invest-
ment (RoI) rather than relying on self-reported
perceptual data.
In summary, three major findings emerge from
this study; namely, the suitability of the business
model framework, the overall positive assessment of
SMEs, and the more favourable assessment of
companies with blockchain experience as opposed
to those without said experience.
5.1 Suitability of the framework
The framework proposed by Morkunas et al.
(2019) turns out to be an appropriate means of
comprehensively evaluating the impact of block-
chain on companies’ business models. The under-
lying business model canvas from Osterwalder and
Pigneur (2010) enjoys widespread recognition as a
tool that can be used to systematically assess all
major components of a company’s business model.
By integrating nine essential elements, each of which
can be assessed with just a couple of key questions, a
company’s infrastructure, financial situation, cus-
tomers, and value proposition can be easily sum-
marised. Since the deployment of blockchain-based
applications is expected to impact all of these areas
simultaneously, it is necessary to adapt the assess-
ment criteria to specifically focus on changes that are
triggered by blockchain technologies.
5.2 Positive assessment of blockchain through SMEs
This study was undertaken in the middle of the
year 2020, at a time when the blockchain hype that
started around 2015 had already waned and only a
few fully-functioning applications were available.
We consider this to be an ideal time to evaluate the
current mood toward a technology that is predicted
to disrupt countless industries and has also faced
sharp criticism. One of the most striking results of
our study was the consistently positive assessment
of all companies regarding the impact of blockchain
on their business model. With the exception of non-
experienced companies that doubted the elimina-
tion of lengthy processes and a critical stance taken
by all companies toward the costs that are needed to
deploy blockchain solutions, all of the evaluations
were positive as indicated by scores below the
threshold of 3, which represents a neutral evalua-
tion. This is especially noteworthy given that the
current sentiment in the media toward blockchain
technology is still equivocal and the lack of widely
accepted reference applications that could showcase
important use cases to companies.
5.3 Previous blockchain experience leads to a more
positive assessment
One of the most outstanding findings of our
research was that the evaluation and the expectations
of those companies that had already tried out block-
chain technologies was consistently better than those
of inexperienced companies. This held for all of the
items that we used for our assessment except for the
two questions in which all participating companies
expressed full agreement and the statement that the
deployment of blockchain leads to increased software,
IT, and personnel development costs. Even though
the number of companies with blockchain experience
was substantially smaller than the number with no
experience (19 as opposed to 99), our findings that
experience improves perceptions support the notion
of blockchain as a promising game changer.
In conclusion, our empirical findings indicate that
blockchain technologies are perceived as positively
affecting all core components of a business model
despite increasing certain cost categories during
adoption. Perhaps even more importantly, the ex-
periences of early blockchain adopters appear to
boost optimism about these positive impacts.
However, two caveats remain. Firstly, the technol-
ogy is still at an early stage, and expectations might
be exaggerated and therefore be in a position to
positively bias the assessment of those who already
have solutions that are up and running. Secondly,
blockchain is a very broad term that is inconsistently
defined and comprises a lot of different concepts
and respective implementations. In a narrow sense,
blockchain consists of protocols and algorithms that
establish distributed consensus on public ledgers.
Many of the features that are included in the
blockchain canvas are not core characteristics of the
technology, but rather implemented in applications
that are based on distributed ledgers. It is therefore
not a specific technology that we used as a blueprint
for our study, but rather the sum total of all existing
and future implementations, with each having its
own offerings and shortcomings. Future studies
need to be specific about the idiosyncrasies of a
particular application and how exactly it can shape a
company’s existing business model or even trigger
the invention of new ones. By fully understanding
how this technology can impact business models,
companies will be in a much better position to
purposefully select those applications that they
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:132e140 139
actually need. As we have shown in this study, the
sentiment of SMEs in 2020 is fairly positive and
expectations are still high, which provides fertile
ground to develop and deploy applications that
provide actual business value. Academia is called
upon to contribute to this development by offering
tools that can assess the actual business value of the
(proposed) use cases.
References
Angelis, J., & Ribeiro da Silva, E. (2019). Blockchain adoption: A
value driver perspective. Business Horizons, 62(3), 307e314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.12.001
Antonopoulos, A. M. (2017). The internet of money volume two: A
collection of talks by Andreas M. Antonopoulos (1st ed.). Merkle
Bloom LLC.
Bogusz, C. I., Laurell, C., & Sandstrom, C. (2020). Tracking the
digital evolution of entrepreneurial finance: The interplay
between crowdfunding, blockchain technologies, crypto-
currencies, and initial coin offerings. IEEE Transactions on En-
gineering Management, 67(4), 1099e1108. https://doi.org/10.
1109/TEM.2020.2984032
European Commission. (2019). 2019 SBA fact sheet: Slovenia (pp.
1e24). European Commission Directorate.
Fan, K., Bao, Z., Liu, M., Vasilakos, A. V., & Shi, W. (2020). Dredas:
Decentralized, reliable and efficient remote outsourced data
auditing scheme with blockchain smart contract for industrial
IoT. Future Generation Computer Systems, 110, 665e674. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2019.10.014
Kharpal, A. (2018, March 6). Blockchain is “one of the most overhyped
technologies ever,” Nouriel Roubini says. CNBC. https://www.
cnbc.com/2018/03/06/blockchain-nouriel-roubini-one-of-the-
most-overhyped-technologies-ever.html
Kranz, J., Nagel, E., & Yoo, Y. (2019). Blockchain token sale.
Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(6), 745e753.
Lacity, M. C. (2020). Blockchain foundations: For the internet of value
(1st ed.). Epic Books.
Montecchi, M., Plangger, K., & Etter, M. (2019). It's real, trust me!
Establishing supply chain provenance using blockchain.
Business Horizons, 62(3), 283e293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2019.01.008
Morgan-Thomas, A. (2016). Rethinking technology in the SME
context: Affordances, practices and ICTs. International Small
Business Journal, 34(8), 1122e1136. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0266242615613839
Morkunas, V. J., Paschen, J., & Boon, E. (2019). How blockchain
technologies impact your business model. Business Horizons,
62(3), 295e306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2019.01.009
Narayanan, A., & Clark, J. (2017). Bitcoin's academic pedigree.
Communications of the ACM, 60(12), 36e45. https://doi.org/10.
1145/3132259
Oberhaus, D. (2018). The world's oldest blockchain has been hiding in
the New York Times since 1995. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/
article/j5nzx4/what-was-the-first-blockchain
Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: A
handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. John
Wiley & Sons.
Pedersen, A., Risius, M., & Beck, R. (2019). A ten-step decision
path to determine when to use blockchain technologies. MIS
Quarterly Executive, 18(2), 99e115.
Rejeb, A., Keogh, J. G., & Treiblmaier, H. (2020). How blockchain
technology can benefit marketing: Six pending research areas.
Frontiers in Blockchain, 3(3), 1e12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.
2020.00003
Rejeb, A., Keogh, J. G., Zailani, S., Treiblmaier, H., & Rejeb, K.
(2020). Blockchain technology in the food industry: A review of
potentials, challenges and future research directions. Logistics,
4(4), 1e26. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics4040027
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., & Shen, L. (2019).
Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable
supply chain management. International Journal of Production
Research, 57(7), 2117e2135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.
2018.1533261
Sarooghi, H., Sunny, S., Hornsby, J., & Fernhaber, S. (2019).
Design thinking and entrepreneurship education: Where are
we, and what are the possibilities? Journal of Small Business
Management, 57(S1), 78e93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12541
Swan, M. (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy (1st ed.).
O’Reilly and Associates.
Tapscott, D., & Tapscott, A. (2016). Blockchain revolution: How the
technology behind bitcoin is changing money, business, and the
world. Portfolio.
Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., & Neergaard, H. (2016).
The promise of entrepreneurship education: Reconceptualiz-
ing the individualeopportunity nexus as a conceptual frame-
work for entrepreneurship education. International Small
Business Journal, 34(7), 905e924. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0266242616638422
Travizano, M., Sarraute, C., Dolata, M., French, A. M., &
Treiblmaier, H. (2020). Wibson: A case study of a decentral-
ized, privacy-preserving data marketplace. In H. Treiblmaier,
& T. Clohessy (Eds.), Blockchain and distributed ledger technology
use cases: Applications and lessons learned (pp. 149e170).
Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-44337-5_8
Treiblmaier, H. (2018). The impact of the blockchain on the supply
chain: A theory-based research framework and a call for action.
Supply Chain Management: International Journal, 23(6), 545e559.
Treiblmaier, H. (2019). Toward more rigorous blockchain
research: Recommendations for writing blockchain case
studies. Frontiers in Blockchain, 2(3), 1e15. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fbloc.2019.00003
Zamani, E. D., & Giaglis, G. M. (2018). With a little help from
the miners: Distributed ledger technology and market
disintermediation. Industrial Management & Data Systems;
Wembley, 118(3), 637e652. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-05-
2017-0231
140 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:132e140