The coexistence of blockchains and business models (innovation): a systematic review

Purpose Blockchain (BC) is a technological innovation that emphasizes the opposite paradigm compared to the available technology. This paradigm enables changing the firm’s business models (BMs) and has been elaborated by many experts. However, the discussion is scattered in various sources, particularly academic journals. This study aims to investigate the literature on the coexistence of BCs and BMs and depict the currently available situation that has not been discussed. Design/methodology/approach This study investigated articles focusing on the coexistence of BCs and BMs through heterogeneous academic databases, namely, Emerald, ProQuest, Taylor & Francis, ScienceDirect and Scopus. The systematic approach and development of inclusion criteria used in this study resulted in 52 key articles for further review. This systematic review followed the PRISMA framework and a timeframe between 2012 and 2022. Findings This study classifies literature based on specific themes, the integration of BC (interaction and evolution) and BM innovation (innovativeness, new value system and system logic), including the research design. As expected, the literature on BCs and BMs appears to be focused on particular themes since this topic appears to have grown. This study identifies gaps in the literature and describes future research to accommodate the study discrepancy. Research limitations/implications The major limitation of this study is the research bias. Such a bias might occur due to the misinterpretations of researchers in this study. In the process of devising databases and keywords, this study identified the potential for misinterpretation. This study sought to use rigid protocols through a manual approach to mitigate the potential bias. A research bias also has the potential to arise in the literature classification. A literature categorization is performed back and forth, by referring to the theory or concept of a particular topic. The next limitation is limited access to scientific databases. This study drew upon several reputable scientific journal databases. However, the researcher considered the journal selection to be built upon a journal’s accessibility, multi-disciplinary nature and data size compared to other journals. It allows the analysis results to be biased, as they do not represent all available databases. However, the study used the available formal access to maintain the integrity of this research. Originality/value This study conducts a systemati