Abstract
Purpose
The real estate industry is often highlighted as a significant beneficiary of blockchain-driven digital transformation (DT). This paper unravels blockchain’s role in driving rapid DT in the Finnish housing sector and its removal after market entry.
Design/methodology/approach
This four-year longitudinal study used 35 semi-structured interviews.
Findings
Blockchain was crucial in the early industry-wide DT, fostering innovation through shared value creation, delivery and capture while supporting collaboration and enhancing processes. The findings largely support blockchain’s theoretical benefits in reducing intermediaries, automating processes, minimizing errors, enhancing transparency and addressing data silos in real estate transactions. However, limitations – like the need for specialised expertise, scalability issues and centralisation tendencies emerged – ultimately outweighed the benefits, leading to blockchain abandonment. Regulatory commitment, contrary to expectations about regulatory barriers, regulatory commitment substantially boosted industry activities. While blockchain can spark transformation, maintaining momentum amid evolving market and regulatory developments may require more than blockchain alone can offer.
Practical implications
Blockchain can drive early-stage DT even in traditional industries like real estate, addressing issues like intermediary reliance, manual processes, inefficiencies and errors. However, it does not guarantee long-term decentralisation as initially promised and depends on off-chain governance.
Originality/value
This is the first empirical study on blockchain in real estate examining the drivers of a full-scale DT. It is also amongst the first to explore blockchain’s evolving role in successful industry-wide transformation based on a rare four-year study, extending insights into blockchain’s initial impact and subsequent limitations beyond the firm level.
Keywords
Citation
Saari, A., Junnila, S. and Vimpari, J. (2024), "Blockchain-driven digital transformation in the housing industry", Digital Transformation and Society, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTS-06-2024-0088
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2024, Anniina Saari, Seppo Junnila and Jussi Vimpari
License
Published in Digital Transformation and Society. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
1. Introduction
Digital transformation (“DT”) blurs organisational, industry and geographic boundaries in today’s unpredictable economy. However, its implications for established companies and digitally less savvy industries remain poorly understood (Furr, Ozcan, & Eisenhardt, 2022). The academic community has shown a growing interest in DT, resulting in many definitions. This paper adopts Gong and Ribiere’s (2021) definition, portraying DT as “a fundamental change process enabled by the innovative use of digital technologies accompanied by the strategic leverage of key resources and capabilities, aiming to radically improve organisations, industry or society and redefine its value proposition for its stakeholders.”
The real estate sector, a traditionally conservative industry, faces unique challenges that present opportunities for DT. As the world’s largest asset class (Savills, 2023) and a primary source of household wealth (Guiso & Sodini, 2013), real estate also has remarkable climate effects through energy use and emissions (IPCC, 2023). The industry is characterised by costly manual processes, reliance on trusted intermediaries, verification of data stored in siloed systems and inefficiencies that result in time-consuming transactions (Wouda & Opdenakker, 2019; Smith, Vora, Benedetti, Yoshida, & Vogel, 2019; Nijland & Veuger, 2019; Saari, Junnila, & Vimpari, 2022). Furthermore, real estate is lagging in digitalisation compared to other industries (Ekman, Berglind, & Thompson, 2021), which highlights the potential for productivity gains through DT, as observed in other traditional sectors like hospitality and electricity (Vu & Hartley, 2022; Lee, Jang, & Kim, 2024).
Traditional digital technologies have faced difficulties in addressing these systemic challenges due to their reliance on centralised authorities. In contrast, blockchain technology, defined as a decentralised transaction and data management technology using cryptography (Yli-Huumo, Ko, Choi, Park, & Smolander, 2016), emerges as a particularly suitable solution for addressing these systemic issues and enabling DT in the real estate sector. Blockchain’s unique features – decentralised control, enhanced data security, transparency, automation, privacy and immutability (Notheisen, Cholewa, & Shanmugam, 2017; Hackius & Petersen, 2020) – make it well suited to address long-standing real estate issues, including intermediary-dependence (Stoica, Ghilic-Micu, & Mircea, 2019), costly manual processes (Smith et al., 2019), verification of data stored in siloed systems (Nijland & Veuger, 2019), non-transparency (Stoica et al., 2019; Wouda & Opdenakker, 2019; Baum, 2020) and information asymmetry (Wouda & Opdenakker, 2019; Baum, 2020; Saari, Junnila, & Vimpari, 2022).
While there is extensive theoretical literature on the benefits of blockchain in transforming the real estate industry, empirical evidence remains scarce, particularly in demonstrating its sustained impact over time (Saari, Vimpari, & Junnila, 2022). This study contributes by empirically validating blockchain’s potential in driving industry-wide DT in this under-digitalised sector through a permissioned blockchain. This study is unique in providing long-term insights into the potential and challenges of blockchain-driven DT; something largely missing in the existing literature.
Unlike other digital technologies optimising existing systems, blockchain can offer a single, distributed, accessible and transparent platform (Saari, Junnila, & Vimpari, 2022). This approach simplifies processes, reduces reliance on intermediaries and makes transactions faster, more secure and less error-prone (Baum, 2020; Saari, Junnila, & Vimpari, 2022). To provide a structured approach for understanding blockchain’s role in DT, this study introduces a simplified conceptual model that connects blockchain technology directly to systemic issues in real estate. The model showcases how blockchain’s decentralised framework can help address inefficiencies, reduce intermediary dependence and redefine value propositions for stakeholders, contributing to radical industry improvements (Figure 1). After all, past research has demonstrated that even as an add-on layer to existing systems, blockchain can offer tangible benefits like fraud prevention, increased trust and improved security in real estate compared to traditional centralised technologies (Kshetri, 2021).
A distinct feature of blockchain is that it fundamentally restructures value exchange mechanisms, uniquely positioning it as a driver of DT for industries like real estate that have traditionally been resistant to change (Braesemann & Baum, 2020). Integrating blockchain as part of DT can support new business models based on decentralisation, verification and immutability (Hackius & Petersen, 2020), potentially revolutionising contracts, transactions and records. While blockchain offers substantial potential for transformation, it remains an emerging technology facing scepticism about its role in DT. This scepticism stems from significant adoption barriers (Gurzhii, Islam, Haque, & Marella, 2022; Nkomo & Kalisz, 2023), and practitioners’ limited awareness of its business use cases (Baycik & Gowda, 2023). Yet, emerging research suggests that blockchain’s role in organisational DT will expand beyond cryptocurrencies, fostering transparency, secure data sharing and trust-based ecosystems (Omol, 2023).
Contemporary DT literature on blockchain has focussed on its challenges, benefits and integration with other technologies (Gurzhii et al., 2022). While previous studies have established the theoretical foundations of blockchain’s potential across various industries, including supply chain management (Baycik & Gowda, 2023), pharmaceutical (Miozza, Brunetta, & Appio, 2024), agrifood (Sabbagh et al., 2024), construction (Pinto & de Oliveira, 2024), financial (Himanshu & Gupta, 2024), foreign trade (Topcu, Can, & Özçınar, 2023), hospitality (Ratna, Saide, Putri, Indrajit, & Muwardi, 2023) and auditing (Leocádio, Malheiro, & Reis, 2024), these studies have primarily relied on industry surveys and literature reviews with limited insights from real-world applications.
Conducted as a longitudinal study from 2019 to 2022, this research provides a robust analysis of how blockchain’s role in DT evolves over time, addressing the limitations of too-short timespans in existing DT studies (Carroll, Hassan, Junglas, Hess, & Morgan, 2023). This study is the first to provide a longitudinal empirical investigation of blockchain’s evolving role in real estate DT. To guide this inquiry, the study’s research questions are as follows: 1. How can blockchain drive industry-level DT? 2. What are blockchain’s limitations in sustaining DT?
This research contributes to the literature by providing empirical insights from a unique blockchain implementation that successfully initiated DT but was later phased out, addressing Massaro (2023)‘s call for more substantiated insights and Carroll et al.’s (2023) call for examining initiating versus sustaining DT. The insights derived from understanding why blockchain, despite being critical in the platform initially, was later phased out provide valuable guidelines for practitioners and policymakers by highlighting blockchain’s evolving role in DT efforts. The study extends the focus from individual organisations to broader industry-level dynamics, as called for by Kraus et al. (2022).
This research examines a digital housing trade platform ecosystem in Finland, a leader in the EU’s digital performance rankings (European Commission, 2022). Launched in July 2019, the Corda-based platform transformed housing transactions by connecting various stakeholders. Covering nearly the entire Finnish mortgage market, the platform processed almost 45 % of apartment transactions conducted through agents in October 2023.
The empirical research method includes semi-structured interviews, longitudinal data and secondary documents. In the examined industry digitalisation, the DT redefined value proposition for ecosystem participants: real estate agents focus on efficient property sales services, banks transitioned to a digital platform allowing standardised property sales, end-users benefit from easy digital transactions and the public sector enjoys faster property registrations with fewer errors. Following Wessel et al. (2021), this study distinguishes DT as redefining value propositions, unlike IT-enabled transformation, which supports existing ones and firmly positions within DT.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides the theoretical background on blockchain in DT. Section 3 describes the research methodology. Section 4 presents the results of blockchain’s role and limitations in DT. Section 5 discusses the study’s theoretical and practical contributions. Finally, Section 6 provides conclusions.
2. Theoretical background: blockchain in digital transformation
This section presents a conceptual model along with seven theoretical propositions on blockchain’s benefits, value and limitations in DT. Each proposition is linked to relevant literature. These propositions are primarily based on Toufaily, Zalan, and Dhaou’s (2021) framework of blockchain adoption challenges and expected value, guiding the original data collection. To enrich Toufaily’s model on benefits and value, this research incorporated insights from Gurzhii et al.’s (2022) review of blockchain benefits and challenges, expanding the focus from individual ecosystem participants to the ecosystem level. Given that many challenges in blockchain-enabled DT can be seen as paradoxical tensions (Tim & Oliver, 2021) – contradictory demands that exist simultaneously and persist over time (Smith & Lewis, 2011) – the propositions are enriched with related literature. These tensions provide a comprehensive perspective for understanding the complexities and dualities inherent in blockchain adoption. Paradoxical tensions may seem logical and desirable individually but appear irrational when considered together (Smith & Lewis, 2011).
2.1 Conceptual model: blockchain in real estate DT
This section builds on the DT model by Gong and Ribiere (2021) emphasising that DT involves leveraging digital technologies strategically to achieve transformative outcomes. It goes beyond mere technology adoption by requiring a fundamental change process that radically improves industries and redefines value propositions.
Figure 1 presents a simplified conceptual model visualising how blockchain enables DT in the real estate industry. The model begins by identifying the current systemic issues in real estate transactions, such as intermediary-dependence (Stoica et al., 2019), costly manual processes (Smith et al., 2019), verification of data stored in siloed systems (Nijland & Veuger, 2019), errors (Baum, 2020), non-transparency (Stoica et al., 2019; Wouda & Opdenakker, 2019; Baum, 2020) and information asymmetry (Wouda & Opdenakker, 2019; Saari, Junnila, & Vimpari, 2022). Blockchain’s unique features – decentralisation, security, trust, transparency, automation and privacy (Notheisen et al., 2017; Hackius & Petersen, 2020) – address these challenges by providing a more streamlined, shared and secure approach to data management and transactions (Saull, Baum, & Braesemann, 2020; Saari, Junnila, & Vimpari, 2022). Specifically, blockchain reduces intermediary reliance (Stoica et al., 2019), manages data in a decentralised way (Saull et al., 2020) and enhances trust and transparency (Stoica et al., 2019; Wouda & Opdenakker, 2019), which are crucial for overcoming existing inefficiencies. These features transform the real estate industry by enabling a fundamental change process, resulting in radical improvements for the sector.
The outcomes of blockchain-driven DT include redefining value proposition for stakeholders, such as real estate agents, banks, customers, public authorities and society at large, and achieving economic and capability-driven outcomes (Gong & Ribiere, 2021). By mapping the flow from the vital blockchain features to its impacts on the real estate industry, the model helps understand how blockchain facilitates immediate operational benefits and long-term strategic changes when driving the sector’s DT.
2.2 Theoretical propositions on blockchain’s role in DT
P1. Value creation (Toufaily et al., 2021; Gurzhii et al., 2022). Blockchain in DT affects all aspects of business model development, offering novel ways to create, capture and deliver value (Gurzhii et al., 2022). With blockchain, a single source of truth in the technical architecture records all interactions, preventing misuse of knowledge. Transparent, immutable knowledge flows and smart contracts eliminate information asymmetries, standardise interactions and prevent opportunistic behaviour. An immutable ledger controls quality and provides traceability, shifting innovation to networked settings with diverse actors (Schmeiss, Hoelzle, & Tech, 2019).
Blockchain facilitates a trustable collaboration, extends the firm-centric view and allows cross-organisational workflow management (Schmeiss et al., 2019; Marikyan, Papagiannidis, Rana, & Ranjan, 2022). Permissioned blockchains transfer market principles to the digital world, enabling distributed value generation (Zavolokina, Ziolkowski, & Bauer, 2020). They help organisations control business processes and share operational efficiencies, creating value for all participants (Gurzhii et al., 2022).
Empirical evidence shows that a mindset shift benefits blockchain adoption, with participants appreciating the ecosystem-wide benefits over individual gains (Toufaily et al., 2021). Blockchain-enabled business model innovation can improve customer experience, such as offering 24/7 services (Toufaily et al., 2021). Collaborative innovation, like creating a new blockchain-based distributed system architecture across businesses, is a crucial value-creation potential in blockchain consortiums (Zavolokina et al., 2020). However, Zavolokina et al. (2020) also note a business value tension between improving integration and operational efficiencies and enhancing market transparency. Temporal separation may solve this by first prioritising operational efficiencies and integrations while assigning overall market trust and transparency as a long-term goal.
P2. Value delivery (Gurzhii et al., 2022). Blockchain efficiently manages and distributes value by governing transactions between multiple parties without central authority, reducing intermediary roles (Notheisen et al., 2017; Gurzhii et al., 2022). It delivers value through stakeholder collaboration and inter-organisational cooperation, reducing process inefficiencies and security risks. Additionally, blockchain cuts costs and may enhance customer-perceived quality. The technology’s transparent data exchange benefits extend across borders, enhancing global business operations and partnerships (Gurzhii et al., 2022).
Blockchain automates pre-defined rights and decisions through code, enabling on-chain ecosystem governance. However, establishing a trustless on-chain platform requires mutual off-chain trust and understanding amongst ecosystem members. Zavolokina et al. (2020) observe a tension between the long-term vision of distributed governance and effective short-term governance.
P3. Value capture (Gurzhii et al., 2022). A shared technical architecture ensures fair and transparent value capture for all actors by providing a standardised infrastructure that automatically tracks interactions and triggers payouts (Schmeiss et al., 2019). Blockchain addresses the paradox of openness – where creating innovations requires openness, but commercialising innovations requires protection (Schmeiss et al., 2019) – by standardising and automating interactions between multiple actors, predefining how value is provided, negotiated, shared and realised (Schmeiss et al., 2019).
Blockchain improves revenues by lowering administrative costs, shortening processing times, increasing participant interaction, reducing risk mitigation costs and enhancing operational control (Toufaily et al., 2021). Shared efficiency through system integration and controlled access to trusted data provides a competitive advantage and minimises overhead costs (Zavolokina et al., 2020). Blockchain’s automation and 24/7 access contribute to these benefits. Return on investment expectations are a critical driver for blockchain adoption (Toufaily et al., 2021).
However, aligning blockchain with existing business models can be a strategic challenge (Toufaily et al., 2021; Zareen, 2023). Many companies struggle with integration, and some ecosystems have irrationally adopted blockchain based on hype or fear of missing out, leading to unrealistic expectations (Zareen, 2023). Often, similar systems could be established more easily and cheaply without blockchain (Zareen, 2023). Current mindsets frequently impose limitations (Toufaily et al., 2021).
P4. Transparent inter-organisational collaboration (Gurzhii et al., 2022). Blockchain addresses information asymmetries, ensures fair and efficient collaboration across organisations and improves business processes (Gurzhii et al., 2022). Companies value blockchain’s coordination and interconnectedness benefits (Toufaily et al., 2021). While inter-organisational cooperation is critical for leveraging blockchain’s transaction-cost-lowering potential (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2017), there is tension between collaboration and disintermediation (Zavolokina et al., 2020). Although blockchain aims to eliminate intermediaries, companies want to retain their market positions (Zavolokina et al., 2020). To solve this, Zavolokina et al. (2020) suggest initially co-designing the system for operational efficiency and considering new business benefits post-adoption. Another tension exists between creating a trustless transaction system and the need for trust amongst the ecosystem. While blockchain enables trustless transactions, building the ecosystem requires mutual trust amongst its members, shifting the trust perspective from purely technical to sociotechnical (Zavolokina et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, the successful implementation of blockchain hinges on governance and leadership readiness. Failures often stem from inappropriate governance, insufficient investment and funds and competition amongst existing and potential members (Zareen, 2023). Organisations must have the necessary skilled human resources, financial backing and appropriate infrastructure to adopt new IT innovations effectively (Toufaily et al., 2021).
P5. Business process improvements and changes (Toufaily et al., 2021; Gurzhii et al., 2022). Blockchain’s automation and data immutability drive business process improvements (Gurzhii et al., 2022). Smart contracts ensure secure data storage, efficient data sharing, automatic logging and risk reduction (Gurzhii et al., 2022). Blockchain reduces cost and intermediaries, standardises processes, increases efficiency and transparency, cuts manual data handling, improves information, speeds up services and offers 24/7 access (Toufaily et al., 2021). It optimises data structuring, enhancing operational quality and reduces errors, fraud, duplication and waste (Toufaily et al., 2021). Blockchain adoption also enables companies to rethink internal and external processes and develop new technological capabilities (Toufaily et al., 2021). Gurzhii et al. (2022) note that blockchain facilitates sustainable practices across various dimensions, contributing to sustainable development.
The complexity of existing business processes can pose challenges before blockchain adoption (Tim & Oliver, 2021; Gurzhii et al., 2022). Overcoming these limitations requires a strategic approach to aligning business models, developing governance structures and ensuring organisational readiness (Gurzhii et al., 2022).
P6. Technological barriers and challenges (Toufaily et al., 2021; Gurzhii et al., 2022). The mass adoption of blockchain faces several technological obstacles. One major challenge is technological immaturity, as many blockchain applications are still not fully operational (Gurzhii et al., 2022). Security concerns, especially in permissionless systems, hinder acceptance (Toufaily et al., 2021). Data privacy issues, like sharing sensitive data and ensuring consumer protection, pose challenges.
The costs associated with blockchain technology are considerable, including both direct expenses and those related to the learning and adoption (Toufaily et al., 2021). Interoperability between different applications remains difficult, complicating the exchange and use of information. The technology’s complexity, still in its emerging state, confuses many users, highlighting a need for greater awareness, education and understanding of blockchain’s technical and business implications (Toufaily et al., 2021). Furthermore, the lack of data input and migration standards hinders data conversion and integration with existing systems (Gurzhii et al., 2022).
P7. Environmental and external challenges (Toufaily et al., 2021). Blockchain’s mass adoption also faces several external challenges. One significant issue is regulatory uncertainty. The absence of a comprehensive regulatory framework slows innovation, as there are no globally accepted blockchain and smart contract standards essential for increasing user confidence and acceptance (Gurzhii et al., 2022). Another challenge is the network effects and inter-organisational connectedness. Effective adoption requires a large user base to support the definition of standards and protocols and leverage network effects, necessitating multiple stakeholders’ participation (Toufaily et al., 2021). Approaches to tackle this include fostering public-private partnerships and identifying new collaboration opportunities for startups (Toufaily et al., 2021). Ecosystem readiness is also crucial, referring to the participants’ awareness, education and understanding of blockchain benefits and applicability. Ensuring that the ecosystem is well-informed and prepared is essential (Toufaily et al., 2021).
3. Research methodology
3.1 Case study methodology
This study used a longitudinal, revelatory case study methodology (Yin, 1994) to investigate blockchain’s role in industry-level DT. The case, the real-life permissioned blockchain-based industry platform, now covers 98% of Finnish mortgage markets and has, in practice, digitally transformed the Finnish housing transaction industry. However, after its market entry and early success, the platform ownership was centralised and blockchain was replaced. The study assessed the viewpoints of multiple actors and stakeholders, including organisations and industries, end-users and society, the public sector, startups and entrepreneurs. The study used semi-structured interviews and secondary documentation to provide extensive empirical evidence. Background and the DT process are detailed in Supplementary Material A.
3.2 Data
Data for the longitudinal study were collected in two phases, with 35 interviews aligning with Guest, Bunce, and Johnson (2006) recommendations for diverse, comprehensive research projects. In the Autumn of 2019, the first phase obtained a preliminary understanding of the DT process through ten loosely structured interviews with banks, real estate agents and governmental authorities after launching the platform but before platform ownership was centralised. The first-phase interviews lasted 30 to 60 minutes, forming the basis for the DT process description in Supplementary Material A.
Phase two data collection occurred after ownership centralisation and blockchain removal, using Toufaily et al.’s (2021) blockchain technology adoption framework for multi-level analysis. Phase two involved 25 in-depth semi-structured interviews from July to September 2022, structured into three rounds (Supplementary Material B). The first round allowed interviewees to freely discuss the benefits, challenges and ecosystem value. The second round asked specific theory-based questions, and the last round focussed on changes throughout the DT process. The second-phase interviews lasted 30 to 120 minutes and were audio-recorded, transcribed and conducted by the same interviewer for consistency.
The interviews, shown in Table 1, cover various industries, including banking (10), real estate agents (7) and the public sector (6). The sample includes platform providers and owner-producers, with 10 participants, plus end-users (3) and stakeholders (5). Platform owners control the intellectual property and governance, providers serve the interface with users, producers create their offerings and end-users use those offerings (Alstyne, Parker, & Choudary, 2016). Most interviewees held leadership positions (23), with 16 in management. Leadership roles include executives and senior roles focussing on strategic decisions, whereas management includes middle managers and team leaders overseeing specific departments or projects.
The secondary documents for triangulation included technology sector press releases (2018–2022), a 2019 governmental bill and two project presentations from the banking and public sectors (2018–2019).
3.3 Data analysis
Data analysis involved two steps. First, it used thematic content analysis (Friese, 2019) to comprehend the overarching DT process detailed in Supplementary Material A. Second, analysis employed the Gioia approach (2013) to delve deeper into blockchain’s role in this industry-wide DT. The Gioia method is a systematic inductive approach for developing new concepts relevant to the individuals experiencing them (the informant) and researchers theorising about those experiences (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013). Using the Gioia approach, the study first performed informant-centric data coding (1st-order) in Atlas.ti version 22’s qualitative data analysis tool to understand the blockchain role and limitations in the DT. For instance, the 1-st order codes “orchestrating a shared industry-level process” and “genuine business case fit” were assigned for the following quote.
Traditionally, the [housing transaction] process would get stuck in silos, and APIs would communicate between the silos. Corda solves the process state problem and helps inter-organisational process management.
These empirical observations were then organised into theory-centric themes (2nd order) and distilled into aggregate dimensions. In the above example, both the first-order codes were organised under the “strategic alignment in decentralised process orchestration” second-order theme.
Finally, the data structure was transformed into a dynamic model (Figure 2) by formulating relationships amongst the 2nd-order concepts. These concepts and relationships were refined through literature consultation. When writing the results and selecting illustrative quotes, statements across interviewees were cross-checked to verify the findings, primarily using descriptive codes for consistency. For instance, 20 subcodes for discontinuing blockchain were reviewed in Atlas.ti’s code manager to ensure internal validity. The secondary documents helped trace the evolution of events and activities throughout the DT. The thematic analysis underwent multiple iterations between data collection, coding and theory.
4. Results
The results are presented in two parts. First, Subsections 4.1 and 4.2 examine empirical support for the propositions by linking the identified blockchain drivers and limitations with the specific propositions. Second, Chapter 5 discusses how the empirical insights enrich the theoretical propositions overall and provides further theoretical contributions. Interview quotes maintain a direct connection between the results and the studied DT.
4.1 Blockchain’s role in driving industry-wide DT
The findings of this research demonstrate how blockchain technology drivers and limitations vary distinctly across different stages in industry-wide DT, as shown in the model in Figure 3.
In the implementation phase, blockchain’s role in driving industry-wide DT is based on its decentralised process orchestration and trust facilitation capabilities, allowing even competing industry members to collaborate without reliance on trusted third parties, supporting the theoretical propositions of value creation, delivery and capture (P1-P3) and inter-organisational collaboration (P4). The empirical data indicates that, in response to regulatory mandates for digitalising paper-based share certificates (P7), the study’s organisations strategically chose blockchain from three potential solutions as the best fit for the use case. Blockchain captured value by standardising and automating interactions between multiple actors with predefined logic (P3), which helped the ecosystem address the paradox of openness in the early stage. Then, data structuring and standardisation through blockchain lead to improved operational quality, error reduction and 24/7 customer access, aligned with P2 and P5.
We looked at the problem technically: There will be a centralised [governmental] database --, but it was decided to leave the entire trading process outside of it. Option 1: The trading process could have been resolved by a centralised clearing service, either through a service provider or built jointly by the banks. Option 2: Integrations directly into all banks. This would be feasible on a Finnish scale, but maintaining and managing the process status could have been challenging. Managing interfaces is also challenging. Option 3: The tech company suggested a decentralised network where each bank operates its node and manages its customer data. Customer changes and status updates are handled on a shared DLT network, defining the process in distributed apps.
The regulatory push was a crucial factor; without it, the companies likely would not have initiated the shared, digital market solution combined with the centralised governmental registry. This is one primary reason why the examined DT showed low support for the theoretical challenge of external and environmental challenges (P7). The early participants deemed blockchain especially potent for inter-organisational process orchestration, reflecting a strategic alignment, supporting P1, P3 and P5. The consensus on shared rules and embedded process logic enables reliance on a shared process (P4, P5), mitigating the need for trusted third parties, diminishing silos and lessening API dependency (P2). Blockchain also allows the network participants to control their nodes (P2), increasing the trading system’s overall security as they can reside in multiple cloud environments. However, the trading platform was always an add-on to the centralised government registry with APIs to agent portals, demonstrating Bennett, Pickering, and Kara’s (2021) hybrid blockchain implementation.
One key aspect is the pure understanding of blockchain, how it effectively acts as a unifying factor for shared processes — We don’t each have to build our ledger in the traditional style. Instead, we have this approach where everyone can orchestrate the process together. Then, we can agree on the rules. Creating such a rule-based model was probably a crucial development.
The second blockchain role in driving industry-wide DT in the implementation phase is establishing trust foundations for inter-organisational collaboration, showing strong support for P4. Predominantly, this is attributed to blockchain’s decentralised nature; no central party is required, and blockchain’s rules-based logic assures all parties commence on an equal footing. This shifts the focus from the company level to a broader industry perspective, aligned with Toufaily et al. (2021) (P1). This mindset change is critical to succeed in industry-level DT. The empirical evidence highlights that blockchain can foster decentralised governance in the early DT. Additionally, the trust established by blockchain rests on the permanent records, which provide a verifiable audit trail for future review (P2).
Certainly, in the early days, blockchain did create and build a certain level of trust.
In the implementation phase, the third blockchain mechanism driving industry-wide DT acted as a change catalyst, enabling collaboration (P4). Not only can blockchain, as a novel, regulatory-approved technology, spark the required interest and experimentation mindset in the early stages of DT, but it can also help with stakeholder engagement during the implementation to help achieve the shared digitalisation vision, both necessary elements in successful DT.
Many of the larger banks had made some Corda investments, and there was a desire for Corda to materialise. —The enthusiasm is probably one thing that supported the initial phase.
Ultimately, the empirical evidence suggests that in the sustaining stage of the DT, blockchain may not be the core innovation but rather part of a broader distributed business model innovation (P1-P3), providing additional value to stakeholders. Furthermore, the initial curiosity towards blockchain technology and the purpose of understanding blockchain were already addressed during the DT’s implementation phase.
It [blockchain] could have been this necessary vehicle, mechanism when these banks were brought together to work together before this product even existed. — Then, when it was made into a production-level operation, it may no longer be significant. — If I want to say it philosophically, the machinery trust needed at the beginning has now been solved organisationally.
The three multifaceted roles described above highlight how blockchain can help implement DT – not only as a technological foundation for shared business processes (P5) but as an enabler of decentralised business model innovation (P1-P3) and inter-organisational collaboration (P4). Initially, blockchain fosters decentralised process orchestration (P5) and establishes trust foundations, allowing collaboration without central intermediaries (P4). Blockchain can engage the industry actors to experiment and learn in new ways during the implementation. In the sustaining phase, the technology’s benefits decrease as it becomes a broader business model innovation component.
4.2 Blockchain limitations in DT
While blockchain has intrinsic value in igniting and implementing industry-wide DT, its limitations become apparent in the sustaining stages of DT, as illustrated in the model in Figure 3. The empirical findings demonstrate a decline in blockchain’s perceived importance to stakeholders after platform’s market entry. Although beneficial during implementation, blockchain’s decentralisation can complicate managing and sustaining DT in the long term. This is further complicated by the evidence that blockchain does not guarantee long-term decentralisation, as platform ownership can centralise over time, contradicting its decentralisation ethos.
In the studied DT, blockchain initially managed the inter-bank processes, while traditional APIs connected to governmental registries (e.g. Tax, RCIPS) and real estate agent portals. During the sustaining phase, the infrastructure evolved, but the Corda removal did not directly affect users or authorities; for them, the platform worked as before. This indicates that blockchain implementation in DT can be subtle. End-user transparency on the platform was enhanced through an end-user interface without the blockchain in the sustaining phase.
We don’t see it [corda removal]; I know they made that change, which seemed to be outside the roadmap. There has been no indication that it affects the achievement of business objectives at this stage.
The findings indicate that in hybrid settings, where a permissioned blockchain complements existing centralised trusted registries as an add-on layer, the blockchain’s utility may wane during the sustaining phase of DT. For instance, the platform’s integration with the government’s RCPIS established a substantial trust layer guaranteeing the correctness of information, reducing the need for blockchain. Moreover, end-users already trusted their banks.
Blockchain advantages in DT emerge gradually through an adaptive DT journey influenced by the evolving environment. In this DT, incremental implementation delayed value realisation, with full blockchain potential, like automation benefits from smart contracts, pending regulatory timing, aligning with environmental and external challenges (P7). While permissioned blockchains offer decentralisation, security and transparency, they do not ensure sustained benefits in long DT processes. In the observed DT, Corda did not provide the anticipated benefits and was removed from the platform despite still operating on a distributed architecture. This highlights the critical importance of value capture (P3) and business model alignment in DT settings. The practical choice to remove blockchain was also influenced by companies having learnt and transferred the processes to digital settings with the shared business model innovation in the early-stage DT (P2). These processes could now be managed more simply and cost-effectively without blockchain, fully aligning with Zareen (2023).
[Blockchain technology] made it even more intriguing. But those more deeply involved and understand it better might say it could have been done just as well with other technologies.
This study illuminates the tension between centralised control and blockchain’s aim to empower multiple stakeholders in DT. The findings indicate that the collaboration needs decrease once industry-level standards are implemented in distributed digital settings, aligning with Zavolakina et al.’s (2020) suggestion to co-design the system for operational efficiencies and integrations before considering individual business benefits. Centralised ownership in the sustaining phases can provide greater resources but also raise concerns over monopoly power, non-transparency and inequitable value distribution. In the observed DT, a media company took over blockchain’s trust functions, leading to some fears of self-interest, pricing issues and neglect of other stakeholders’ needs. Consequently, banks and real estate agents welcome more competition.
We reached the point we did precisely because we were dealing with a clever and agile startup.—At best, involving a large player can bring more resources to develop it further…The downside can be that we focus on efficiency and maintaining the existing product for cash flow purposes.—Perhaps another thing is that the platform has achieved a powerful position.—That is probably not the optimal solution for the market in the long run.
The empirical findings reveal that while some theoretical blockchain limitations can be overcome, others persist as practical challenges, limiting blockchain usefulness in maintaining DT. These stem mainly from blockchain’s technical complexity, immaturity and high costs, necessitating specialised expertise aligned with P6. On the other hand, data privacy, interoperability and digital conversion (all part of P6) were tackled. The empirical data highlights the technology startup, personified by its CEO, played a substantial role as the blockchain expert driving everything together in the early stages of DT. This dependency on specialised expertise contrasts with blockchain’s inherent decentralisation ethos and is a technological barrier (P6). Merging blockchain expertise with change management skills proved critical, but such a skill set is rare. Moreover, blockchain expertise must transfer broadly to remain viable throughout the DT.
The moon’s position was favourable when we got the startup involved. It was a small, ambitious, and talented group capable of carrying out the project cost-effectively. Through small iterations, we made progress, and everyone began to believe in the possibility of achieving the end goal.—The startup CEO’s role should not be underestimated, as he has been a driver.
The complexity and novelty of blockchain technology created further scalability issues, making development more time-consuming and costly. Finding and affording Corda developers in Finland was difficult, ultimately contributing to blockchain replacement, aligning with P3 and P6.
Yes, there are significant costs in working with such a recently developed platform. Corda itself was evolving a lot all the time.—For example, finding developers…The recruitment costs, let alone other expenses, are more expensive.—And then probably a general slowness that comes with using such a new thing certainly leads to costs.
5. Discussion
5.1 Theoretical contributions
This study contributes significantly to the literature by providing both a conceptual foundation and empirical validation of blockchain’s role in DT of the real estate sector. The conceptual model (Figure 1) serves as a foundational framework illustrating how blockchain can theoretically address systemic issues in real estate transactions, including intermediary dependence, costly manual processes, manual data verification and non-transparency. Blockchain’s unique features (e.g. decentralisation, security, trust, transparency, automation and privacy) make it promising for driving DT in this conservative industry.
Empirically, this study confirms and extends the conceptual model, demonstrating how blockchain-driven DT reduces reliance on intermediaries, enhances transparency, streamlined processes and fosters stakeholder trust, effectively transforming a traditionally resistant industry. The empirical validation underscores blockchain’s capacity as a driver of transformative change.
A broader theoretical contribution is the evolving role of blockchain throughout DT phases. The findings highlight blockchain’s effectiveness in the early stages of industry-wide DT, fostering innovation through shared value creation, delivery and capture while supporting collaboration and enhancing business processes. However, its strategic significance declines in late stages due to emerging limitations (e.g. the need for specialised expertise, scalability issues and an industry-tendency towards control, i.e. centralisation), resulting in blockchain abandonment. This clear transition of blockchain – from an early-stage innovation driver to a supplemental role as DT progresses – adds depth to understanding blockchain’s evolving potential and limitations in DT. This dynamic DT perspective extends the current frameworks that often statically represent blockchain’s value and limitations (see, e.g. Toufaily et al., 2021; Gurzhii et al., 2022; Topcu et al., 2023).
Contrary to previous literature assumptions about regulatory uncertainty being a challenge (Himanshu & Gupta, 2024), this study reveals that regulatory commitment can substantially boost industry-level blockchain activities. In this case, regulatory efforts to digitalise apartment data initiated the ecosystem platform. This study explicitly fills gaps in the literature by offering a nuanced understanding of the dual role of regulatory environments – both enabling and hindering blockchain-driven DT. In contrast to the Finnish case, where regulatory commitment drove digitalisation, the Swedish blockchain initiative, despite technological readiness and significant academic attention, failed to progress beyond the pilot stage (Bennett et al., 2021), emphasising the importance of sustained regulatory support. Overall, the empirical findings align well with the theoretical propositions derived primarily from Toufaily et al. (2021) and Gurzhii et al. (2022), collectively offering a robust theory frame that supports all but one proposition (Table 2).
Furthermore, the findings shed light on blockchain’s complex role in addressing the paradox of openness (Schmeiss et al., 2019). While initially fostering openness and collaboration, blockchain does not guarantee long-term decentralisation. Over time, off-chain ownership and governance can centralise, providing more resources but contradicting blockchain’s promise of decentralisation (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2017). Contrary to Ipert and Mauer’s (2023) expectation of progressive decentralisation, the evidence instead reveals a shift from decentralisation towards centralisation, challenging traditional narratives about blockchain evolution.
Finally, the study underscores the criticality of business model alignment in blockchain-enabled DT as part of value capture (P3), aligned with Zareen (2023) and Sabbagh et al. (2024). Initially, the platform used a startup business model emphasising collaborative innovation and shared value creation. However, following ownership centralisation, it shifted to cash cow’s value capture instead, highlighting the impact of off-chain governance decisions on blockchain’s sustainability.
5.2 Practical implications
This industry-level DT reveals key implications for industry stakeholders. First, it demonstrates that significant digitalisation – capable of solving industry issues such as intermediary-dependence, inefficiencies, manual and costly processes and information asymmetries – is achievable even in conservative industries. However, it may require a regulatory push and a collaborative ecosystem. Blockchain with its key features of decentralisation, security, trust, transparency, automation and privacy can serve as the trust anchor, facilitating inter-organisational collaboration and reducing the need for centralised parties.
Second, blockchain is strategically valuable in industry use cases demanding shared, rule-based processes, offering control, automation and transparency, aligning with (Chen, Chen, & Ou, 2023). However, realising blockchain’s full benefits requires careful implementation, including a continuous assessment of dependencies on centralised registries. Maintaining a business-technology alignment is crucial here (Van Veldhoven & Vanthienen, 2023). Companies must consider how deeply blockchain is implemented and how this affects decentralised vs centralised control – a common risk with platform-based business models. Industries aiming for sustained decentralisation should also consider alternative governance models, such as cooperative models, as suggested by one interviewee.
Finally, it is essential to address blockchain’s dependence on specialised skills through expertise transfer and education, aligning with (Ratna et al., 2023; Sabbagh et al., 2024). Given that blockchain expertise remains scarce, recruiting employees with appropriate digital competencies (Van Veldhoven & Vanthienen, 2023) may not be practical. Companies should balance resources between blockchain, process innovation and traditional IT while prioritising ongoing skills development. In the broader DT context, process innovation – where any technology is just one embedded component – delivers added value to stakeholders and redefines value propositions.
6. Future research, limitations and conclusions
The study of industry-level DT and permissioned blockchain adoption remains in its early stages. This research uniquely explores how and when blockchain is effective in industry-wide DT, highlighting its initial transformative impact and subsequent challenges as the DT process progresses. However, several aspects require further investigation to deepen the understanding of blockchain’s evolving role, especially regarding power dynamics and industry control, as noted by Massaro (2023). While this study indicates a tendency towards centralisation in blockchain-driven DT, future research should explore the long-term social dominance implications of blockchain abandonment on sustaining DT.
This study’s focus on a highly digitalised, developed country with strong public trust in authorities reinforces Massaro’s (2023) observation that most blockchain implementations are concentrated in developed nations, contradicting its original role in reducing inequalities (Toufaily et al., 2021). Finland’s unique regulatory setup for housing transactions further limits the generalisability of the findings. To address these limitations, future research should, following Nkomo and Kalisz’s recommendations (2023), conduct more empirical blockchain studies in developing countries.
Moreover, the finding that regulatory support can significantly drive industry-level DT contrasts with literature that often assumes regulatory uncertainty as a barrier. Future studies should explore the role of regulations – both as a driver and as a barrier – across different industries and regulatory environments.
Future studies could also develop the seven propositions used in this study into a visual presentation (i.e. a theoretical framework) to communicate and test the findings in other settings. Both the models presented in Figure 3 and Figure 1 could be applied to other industries with similar systemic issues, providing broader insights into blockchain’s potential in DT. Last, as hinted by one interviewee, the industry solution may have been implemented without blockchain using different technologies. Future research could explore and compare alternative technologies to blockchain in igniting industry-level DT.
Despite its limitations, this study is amongst the first to examine blockchain’s role in industry-level DT extending into the sustaining phase, demonstrating that significant DT is achievable even in conservative industries. The findings offer crucial contributions to understanding the potential of DT to address systemic industry issues and achieve radical improvements, especially the initial transformative role of blockchain and the challenges that emerge later. This nuanced understanding can guide policymakers, industry stakeholders and technology providers to plan better and to implement blockchain-based initiatives.
Figures
Interview details from both rounds
Date | Industry | Platform role | Hierarchical position | Duration (minutes) | Format |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
24.9.2019 | Banking | Provider, owner | Leadership | 60 | In-person |
26.9.2019 | Public sector | Producer | Leadership | 45 | In-person |
2.10.2019 | Banking | Provider | Management | 45 | Virtual |
11.10.2019 | Banking | Provider | Management | 60 | In-person |
16.10.2019 | Public sector | Producer | Leadership | 60 | In-person |
16.10.2019 | Technology | Provider, owner | Leadership | 45 | In-person |
21.10.2019 | Real estate agent | Producer | Leadership | 30 | In-person |
29.10.2019 | Banking | Provider, owner | Management | 60 | In-person |
1.11.2019 | Real estate agent | Producer | Management | 60 | In-person |
11.11.2019 | Banking | Provider, owner | Leadership | 45 | In-person |
15.6.2022 | End-user | End-user | Leadership | 43 | Virtual |
16.6.2022 | Public sector | Producer | Management | 89 | In-person |
17.6.2022 | Real estate agent | Producer | Management | 49 | Virtual |
20.6.2022 | Banking | Provider, owner | Leadership | 40 | Virtual |
21.6.2022 | Banking | Provider, owner | Leadership and management | 65 | Virtual |
22.6.2022 | Public sector | Producer | Leadership | 87 | Virtual |
22.6.2022 | Banking | Provider, owner | Leadership | 58 | In-person |
22.6.2022 | Real estate agent | Producer | Management | 36 | Virtual |
1.8.2022 | Banking | Provider, owner | Leadership | 63 | In-person |
4.8.2022 | Real estate agent | Producer | Leadership | 42 | Virtual |
8.8.2022 | End-user | End-user | Management | 28 | Virtual |
10.8.2022 | Society | Stakeholder | Leadership | 57 | Virtual |
10.8.2022 | Public sector | Producer | Management | 57 | Virtual |
10.8.2022 | Real estate agent | Producer | Leadership | 58 | In-person |
17.8.2022 | Real estate agent | Producer | Leadership | 33 | Virtual |
19.8.2022 | Banking | Provider, owner | Management | 41 | Virtual |
19.8.2022 | End-user | End-user | Management | 52 | Virtual |
19.8.2022 | Technology | Provider, owner | Leadership | 86 | In-person |
26.8.2022 | Public sector | Producer? | Management | 47 | Virtual |
1.9.2022 | Startup | Stakeholder | Leadership | 75 | Virtual |
7.9.2022 | Society | Stakeholder | Management | 72 | In-person |
8.9.2022 | Construction | Stakeholder | Management | 64 | Virtual |
14.9.2022 | Society | Stakeholder | Leadership | 61 | Virtual |
14.9.2022 | Media | Provider, owner | Leadership | 29 | Virtual |
22.9.2022 | Technology | Producer | Leadership | 68 | In-person |
Source(s): Table by authors
Theoretical propositions with empirical support and primary empirical findings
Proposition | Empirical support | Primary empirical findings |
---|---|---|
P1. Value creation | High | Enabling networked innovation Facilitating trustable collaboration, digital rule transfers Distributed value generation with a shared logic Mindset expanded from organisational to industry-level benefits |
P2. Value delivery | High | Efficient value management and distribution Reduced process inefficiencies Off-chain trust enabled the on-chain trustless platform |
P3. Value capture | High | A shared technical architecture ensured transparent and automated interactions amongst multiple actors with predefined value capture logic Strategically, a similar system could be implemented without blockchain with more ease and less cost |
P4. Transparent inter-organisational collaboration | High | Blockchain acted as a catalyst for change, allowing competing banks to reach consensus on industry processes in early stage DT |
P5. Business process improvements and changes | High | Data structuring and standardisation through blockchain lead to improved operational quality, error reduction, efficiencies, and 24/7 customer access |
P6. Technological barriers and challenges | High | Main challenges: Technological immaturity, dependence on unique capabilities, costs. Data privacy, interoperability, and data conversion into digital tackled |
P7. Environmental and external challenges | Medium/Controversial | Regulatory uncertainty not an issue, as public authorities included in the early stage collaboration. Controversially, systematic regulatory push kickstarted all industry-level activities Network effects and significant adoption achieved by including a significant share of stakeholders, incl. competitors, early on, with blockchain attracting the founders |
Source(s): Table by authors
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
References
Alstyne, M. W. V., Parker, G. G., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Pipelines, platforms, and the new rules of strategy. Harvard Business Review, 54–60, 62, Available from: https://hbr.org/2016/04/pipelines-platforms-and-the-new-rules-of-strategy
Baum, A. (2020). Tokenisation: The future of real estate investment? Saïd business school. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Baycik, N. O., & Gowda, S. (2023). Digitalization of operations and supply chains: Insights from survey and case studies. Digital Transformation and Society, 3, 277–295. doi: 10.1108/DTS-09-2023-0087.
Beck, R., & Müller-Bloch, C. (2017). Blockchain as radical innovation: A framework for engaging with distributed ledgers. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 2017. doi: 10.24251/HICSS.2017.653.
Bennett, M. T., Pickering, M., & Kara, A. -K. (2021). Hybrid approaches for smart contracts in land administration: Lessons from three blockchain proofs-of-concept. Land, 10(2), 220. doi: 10.3390/land10020220.
Braesemann, F., & Baum, A. (2020). PropTech: Turning real estate into a data-driven market?. Oxford: University of Oxford.
Carroll, N., Hassan, N. R., Junglas, I., Hess, T., & Morgan, L. (2023). Transform or be transformed: The importance of research on managing and sustaining digital transformations. European Journal of Information Systems, 32(3), 347–353. doi: 10.1080/0960085X.2023.2187033.
Chen, R. R., Chen, K., & Ou, C. X. J. (2023). Facilitating interorganizational trust in strategic alliances by leveraging blockchain-based systems: Case studies of two eastern banks. International Journal of Information Management, 68, 102521. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102521.
Ekman, P., Berglind, M., & Thompson, S. (2021). Caught on the platform or jumping onto the digital train: Challenges for industries lagging behind in digitalisation. In Management and Information Technology after Digital Transformation. Routledge.
European Commission (2022). Digital economy and society index (DESI) 2022 – country profile Finland. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae/redirection/document/88700 (accessed 22 January 2023).
Friese, S. (2019). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti – third edition (3rd edn.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Furr, N., Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2022). What is digital transformation? Core tensions facing established companies on the global stage. Global Strategy Journal, 12(4), 595–618. doi: 10.1002/gsj.1442.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151.
Gong, C., & Ribiere, V. (2021). Developing a unified definition of digital transformation. Technovation, 102, 102217. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102217.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi: 10.1177/1525822X05279903.
Guiso, L., & Sodini, P. (2013). Chapter 21 – household finance: An emerging field. In G. M. Constantinides, M. Harris, & R. M. Stulz (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Finance (pp. 1397–1532). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Gurzhii, A., Islam, A. K. M. N., Haque, A. K. M. B., & Marella, V. (2022). Blockchain enabled digital transformation: A systematic literature review. IEEE Access, 10, 79584–79605. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3194004.
Hackius, N., & Petersen, M. (2020). Translating high hopes into tangible benefits: How incumbents in supply chain and logistics approach blockchain. IEEE Access, 8, 34993–35003. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2974622.
Himanshu, D. S., & Gupta, S. (2024). Deciphering the factors shaping blockchain technology adoption in the BFSI industry: TISM-MICMAC approach. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting. doi: 10.1108/JFRA-12-2023-0769.
IPCC (2023). AR6 synthesis report: Climate change 2023 — IPCC. Interlaken: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Ipert, C., & Mauer, R. (2023). Infrastructural or organizational decentralization? Developing a typology of blockchain ventures. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 197, 122848. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122848.
Kraus, S., Durst, S., Ferreira, J. J., Veiga, P., Kailer, N., & Weinmann, A. (2022). Digital transformation in business and management research: An overview of the current status quo. International Journal of Information Management, 63, 102466. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102466.
Kshetri, N. (2021). Blockchain as a tool to facilitate property rights protection in the global south: Lessons from India’s Andhra Pradesh state. Third World Quarterly, 0(2), 1–22. doi: 10.1080/01436597.2021.2013116.
Lee, W., Jang, S., & Kim, H. S. (2024). The effect of digital transformation: Boosting productivity in the restaurant industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 123, 103896. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.103896.
Leocádio, D., Malheiro, L., & Reis, J. C. G. D. (2024). Auditors in the digital age: A systematic literature review. Digital Transformation and Society. doi: 10.1108/DTS-02-2024-0014.
Marikyan, D., Papagiannidis, S., Rana, O. F., & Ranjan, R. (2022). Blockchain: A business model innovation analysis. Digital Business, 2, 100033. doi: 10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100033.
Massaro, M. (2023). Digital transformation in the healthcare sector through blockchain technology. Insights from academic research and business developments. Technovation, 120, 102386. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102386.
Miozza, M., Brunetta, F., & Appio, F. P. (2024). Digital transformation of the pharmaceutical industry: A future research agenda for management studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 207, 123580. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123580.
Nijland, M., & Veuger, J. (2019). Influence of blockchain in the real estate sector. International Journal of Applied Sciences, 2, 22. doi: 10.30560/ijas.v2n2p22.
Nkomo, L., & Kalisz, D. (2023). Establishing organisational resilience through developing a strategic framework for digital transformation. Digital Transformation and Society, 2(4), 403–426. doi: 10.1108/DTS-11-2022-0059.
Notheisen, B., Cholewa, J. B., & Shanmugam, A. P. (2017). Trading real-world assets on blockchain. Business Influence System Engineering, 59(6), 425–440. doi: 10.1007/s12599-017-0499-8.
Omol, E. J. (2023). Organizational digital transformation: From evolution to future trends. Digital Transformation and Society, 3, 240–256. doi: 10.1108/DTS-08-2023-0061.
Pinto, V. A. E., & de Oliveira, N. (2024). Potential use of blockchain technology in construction supply chain management of Brazil. Construction Innovation. doi: 10.1108/CI-08-2022-0208.
Ratna, S., Saide, S., Putri, A. M., Indrajit, R. E., & Muwardi, D. (2023). Digital transformation in tourism and hospitality industry: A literature review of blockchain, financial technology, and knowledge management. EuroMed Journal of Business, 19(1), 84–112. doi: 10.1108/EMJB-04-2023-0118.
Saari, A., Junnila, S., & Vimpari, J. (2022). Blockchain’s grand promise for the real estate sector: A systematic review. Applied Sciences, 12(23), 24. doi: 10.3390/app122311940.
Saari, A., Vimpari, J., & Junnila, S. (2022). Blockchain in real estate: Recent developments and empirical applications. Land Use Policy, 121, 106334. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106334.
Sabbagh, P., Crescimanno, M., Vrontis, D., Schimmenti, E., Fiore, M., & Galati, A. (2024). Key antecedents and consequences of blockchain technology adoption in the wine industry: A multiple case study analysis. British Food Journal, 126(8), 3134–3156. doi: 10.1108/BFJ-01-2024-0020.
Saull, A., Baum, A., & Braesemann, F. (2020). Can digital technologies speed up real estate transactions?. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 38(4), 349–361. doi: 10.1108/JPIF-09-2019-0131.
Savills (2023). Total Value of Global Real Estate: Property remains the world’s biggest store of wealth. In Savills Impacts. Available from: https://www.savills.com/impacts/market-trends/the-total-value-of-global-real-estate-property-remains-the-worlds-biggest-store-of-wealth.html (accessed 25 January 2024).
Schmeiss, J., Hoelzle, K., & Tech, R. P. G. (2019). Designing governance mechanisms in platform ecosystems: Addressing the paradox of openness through blockchain technology. California Management Review, 62(1), 121–143. doi: 10.1177/0008125619883618.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Advances in Magnetic Resonance, 36(2), 381–403. doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0223.
Smith, J., Vora, M., Benedetti, D. H., Yoshida, K., & Vogel, Z. (2019). Tokenized securities & commercial real estate. MIT Digital Currency Initiative.
Stoica, M., Ghilic-Micu, B., & Mircea, M. (2019). Restarting the information society based on blockchain technology. Informatica Economica; Bucharest, 23(3), 39–48. doi: 10.12948/issn14531305/23.3.2019.04.
Tim, G., & Oliver, B. (2021). Blockchain-driven handling of digital freight information: A tensions perspective. Logistics Research. doi: 10.23773/2021_3.
Topcu, Y. E., Can, İE., & Özçınar, A. (2023). Blockchain technology in foreign trade management: Which blockchain alternative is more suitable? Digital policy. Regulation and Governance, 26(2), 121–134. doi: 10.1108/DPRG-05-2023-0064.
Toufaily, E., Zalan, T., & Dhaou, S. B. (2021). A framework of blockchain technology adoption: An investigation of challenges and expected value. Information and Management, 58(3), 103444. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2021.103444.
Van Veldhoven, Z., & Vanthienen, J. (2023). Best practices for digital transformation based on a systematic literature review. Digital Transformation and Society, 2, 104–128. doi: 10.1108/DTS-11-2022-0057.
Vu, K., & Hartley, K. (2022). Effects of digital transformation on electricity sector growth and productivity: A study of thirteen industrialized economies. Utilities Policy, 74, 101326. doi: 10.1016/j.jup.2021.101326.
Wessel, L., Baiyere, A., Ologeanu-Taddei, R., Cha, J., & Blegind-Jensen, T. (2021). Unpacking the difference between digital transformation and IT-enabled organizational transformation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(1), 102–129. doi:10.17705/1jais.00655.
Wouda, H. P., & Opdenakker, R. (2019). Blockchain technology in commercial real estate transactions. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 37(6), 570–579. doi: 10.1108/JPIF-06-2019-0085.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., & Smolander, K. (2016). Where is current research on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PLoS One, 11(10), e0163477. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163477.
Zareen, M. (2023). Blockchain multi-organisational ecosystems: Hype-based adoption to implementation realities. ACIS 2023 Proceedings (Vol. 108). Available from: https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2023/108
Zavolokina, L., Ziolkowski, R., & Bauer, I. (2020). Management, governance, and value creation in a blockchain consortium. MISQE, 19, 1–17. doi: 10.17705/2msqe.00022.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Aalto University's Smart-Ready Buildings project, funded by Business Finland (decision No. 5979/31/2021), and the Green Asset Debt and Bond Platform project, funded by Business Finland (decision No. 5720/31/2023).