Blockchain and its effect on business models : a study focussed on the energy sector

(1)

Blockchain and its effect on

business models

A study focussed on the energy sector

An exploratory study on how business models of incumbent firms in the energy sector will change due to blockchain technology

Name: Rens Couwenhoven Student no: 11412321

Date: 21-06-2018

Master: Business Administration – Digital Business University of Amsterdam

Supervisor: Merve Güvendik

(2)

2

Statement of originality

This document is written by Rens Couwenhoven who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3

Acknowledgement

This master thesis has been completed with the help of many people. First, I would like to thank my supervisor Merve Güvendik for her guidance during the writing of my thesis. She has offered me the opportunity to conduct this research on my own, and provided me with supportive feedback and helpful suggestions to come up with a solid thesis.

Second, I would like to thank all interviewees who were willing to participate in this study. All experts have provided me with valuable insights, and their comments and expertise have been extremely helpful in forming an understanding about the energy sector and the role blockchain will play in it.

Finally, I would like to thank my girlfriend. Her continuous support and help over the past few months has helped me complete my master thesis, and improved the strength of my research.

(4)

4

Abstract

Blockchain is a very promising technology and has the potential to change many industries. Incumbent firms and their business models will be impacted specifically by blockchain technology, as their tasks might become automated. Accordingly, proponents suggest that blockchain is a disruptive innovation for incumbent firms. However, contrasting research states blockchain can rather be seen as a radical innovation, which might not have to be harmful for incumbent firms. As long as they perform the right activities, and adapt their business models towards it, they are able to react to it. Nonetheless, how incumbent firms’ business models are impacted, remains unclear. This qualitative research found that blockchain can indeed be seen as a radical innovation for incumbent firms in the energy sector. Blockchain technology offers many points of attractiveness for incumbent firms, and when adapting their business models towards it, they are perfectly able to react to it. Notwithstanding, blockchain will actuate a change in incumbent firms’ business models, meaning they have to adjust and anticipate to it rather than adhere to their current business models. This study is presumably the first to research the impact of blockchain for incumbent firms in the energy sector and has shown how business model research can be used to adapt towards a radical innovation. It provides clarity into what type of innovation blockchain is, and provides managers with a guideline on how to respond to blockchain as a radical innovation.

(7)

7

1. Introduction

Blockchain is currently one of the most promising technologies and might be the biggest disruptive innovation since the start of the Internet (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016). Its first real-life application became familiar under the name Bitcoin; a cryptocurrency that creates a peer-to-peer network for electronic payments in order to find a solution for the double-spending problem (Nakomoto, 2008). In case of the financial sector, this problem is currently solved by intermediaries, such as banks, by checking if every coin is not spent more than once. According to Nakamoto (2008), there is no need for third parties such as banks anymore because blockchain technology can do the same without them. Until now, this new technology has mainly been used in the financial sector, but the number of blockchain utilising start-ups is rapidly increasing among many other industries as well (Friedlmaier, Tumasjan, & Welpe, 2016).

A sector in which blockchain technology is said to have a lot of potential is the energy sector (PwC, 2015; Löbbe & Hackbarth, 2017; Hwang, et al., 2017). Currently, consumers primarily buy their energy from incumbent energy suppliers, but that might no longer be necessary because of blockchain technology (PwC, 2015). Rather, these incumbent firms, such as energy suppliers, will act as a platform provider in the blockchain (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016). This might have severe consequences for incumbent firms’ current way of doing business and asks for new business models in order to keep up with this technology. Therefore, proponents state that blockchain might be the biggest disruptive innovation since the start of the internet (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016). On the other hand, Beck and Müller-Bloch (2017) state that blockchain can rather be seen as a radical innovation which does not necessarily have to be disruptive for incumbent firms. Besides, blockchain is still in its infancy and it is not yet determined if blockchain can be seen as the disruptive innovation as many advocates proclaim.

(8)

8 One of the downsides is that when the number of participants in a blockchain increases, the transaction verification process results in extremely high energy costs (PwC, 2015). Besides, the technology is quite complicated and hard to understand for end-users (Bloomberg, 2017). Also, current transaction times are too long, which may lead to increasing transaction costs. Moreover, security issues such as hacks of the platform (in the Bitcoin blockchain) has led to serious trust concerns (Iansiti & Lakhani, 2017).

Until now, no research has been conducted on how business models will change for incumbent firms due to blockchain in the energy sector. A business model can be divided into nine components (Wirtz, Pistoia, Ullrich, & Göttel, 2016). Due to the disruptive character of blockchain, it will particularly impact the market offer model component of a business model. This component consists of a firm’s competitors, product and service offerings, and market structure. With the impact of blockchain, product and service offerings of incumbent firms will change and consequently, so will its competitors and the total market structure of the energy sector (PwC, 2015). Therefore, it has to be determined how blockchain impacts this component of a business model of incumbent firms. Accordingly, this study’s research question is as follows: How do incumbent firms respond to blockchain as a radical innovation, and how will it impact the market offer model component of business models of incumbent films?

In order to examine this research question, this study will make use of a qualitative research method. Seven in-depth interviews are conducted with blockchain experts working inside incumbent energy firms and blockchain experts working outside energy incumbent firms. In this study, firms that occupy an intermediary position in the market structure chain, often referred to as ‘trusted third party’ or ‘middleman’, will be referred to as ‘incumbent firms’ (e.g., Nuon or Essent in the Dutch energy sector).

This study will contribute to existing literature in that it presumably is the first to research the impact of blockchain in the Dutch energy sector, as previous research mainly

(9)

9 focused on other sectors (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2017). It investigates whether blockchain can be categorised as either a disruptive or a radical innovation for incumbent firms in the energy sector according to its corresponding theories. Also, it applies O’Connor’s (2006) radical innovation framework to determine the progress of blockchain. Finally, it addresses how business models will change in order to react to blockchain by using Wirtz and colleagues’ (2016) business model. For managerial purposes, this study investigates how business models of incumbent firms in the energy sector change due to blockchain. It particularly focuses on how the competitive landscape, products and services, and market structure will be impacted. These three sub components are referred to as the market offer model component (Wirtz et al., 2016). It will provide a framework for managers as to how incumbent firms in the energy sector could change this component of their business model.

The structure of this report is as follows. First, a literature review sets apart current literature about blockchain, the theory of disruptive- and radical innovation, and business models. Based on the literature, a research gap is identified and a research question is formulated with corresponding sub questions. Second, the methodology is explained and justified. Third, the results are presented, derived from this study’s conducted interviews. Fourth, the results will be discussed and an answer to the research question and sub questions is provided. Lastly, a conclusion is presented together with the academic contribution, managerial implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

(10)

10

2. Literature review

2.1. Blockchain and smart contracts

Blockchain is a technology which is said to have a disruptive impact on the energy sector (Löbbe & Hackbarth, 2017). It can be described as a distributed ledger shared among a network of computers which records transactions in sequential manner and in which the transactions cannot be changed or adapted afterwards (Wright & De Filippi, 2015). The transactions are listed in blocks, and those blocks are chronologically ordered on the blockchain (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2017). Instead of one large firm possessing a ledger for every transaction taking place, the whole network possesses this ledger. This creates an environment of trust among users as every transaction has to be verified by every participant (Davidson, de Filippi, & Potts, 2016). When combining blockchain with the Internet of Things (IoT), a new trustful peer-to-peer system can emerge in which peer-to-peers can interact without knowing each other in a trustful and verifiable way (Christidis & Devetsikiotis, 2016). Moreover, according to Seidel (2017) centralised trust organisations might soon be outdated due to distributed trust technologies such as blockchain.

A smart contract is a predefined programmed set of individually designed rules stored on a blockchain (Beck & Müller-Bloch, 2017). It can contain the same rights and consequences as a traditional contract, but operates and executes automatically. With the use of smart contracts, the energy network chain could enable direct communication between households (PwC, 2015). When, for example, a household needs more energy than another, energy excesses can be stored, and shortages can be supplemented by smart contracts automatically, without any interference from an incumbent energy supplier. Energy can be supplied and distributed with smart contracts and every transaction will be added to the blockchain ledger, which is publicly accessible (Löbbe & Hackbarth, 2017). Intermediaries are no longer necessary in their current form, but will rather act as a platform provider on the blockchain (Tapscott & Tapscott,

(11)

11 2016). Advocates expect that it will have impactful consequences for incumbent firms and describe it as the biggest disruptive innovation since start of the Internet (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016). This will be discussed in the following section.

2.2. Theory of disruptive innovation

The theory of disruptive innovation was introduced by Christensen (1997), and attempts to explain why incumbent firms fail when technological innovations emerge. In his initial work, Christensen (1997) distinguishes between ‘sustaining’ and ‘disrupting’ technologies. Sustaining technologies are defined as existing technologies which improve incrementally, following the needs of current customers. Disruptive technologies are simpler, less expensive, and are primarily focused on new market segments with less demanding customers (Christensen, 1997). He finds that incumbent firms often have difficulties adapting to those new technologies. They do not want to underperform towards their current customers, but rather maintain improving sustaining technologies. Consequently, at a certain point the technology is ‘overdeveloped’ in such a way that customers do not utilise it anymore (Christensen & Raynor, 2003); this is when the disrupting technology will be adopted. Incumbents are lagging behind entrants who already were exploiting the new technology and eventually fail to survive in their old market.

To indicate the starting point of disruptive innovations, Christensen and Raynor (2003) make a distinction between ‘low-end disruption’ and ‘new market disruption’. A low-end disruption is defined as an attack on the least demanding customers in a market. Those customers do not need another upgrade from the existing technology and are satisfied a with lower-end one. A new market disruption is trying to find a solution for ‘overdeveloped’ technologies that are not utilised by consumers anymore (Christensen & Raynor, 2003), with a technology that is unattainable for established firms (Christensen, 2006). Low-end disruptions

(12)

12 exist because of incumbent firms that want to serve their most demanding customers who are also often the most profitable ones (Christensen, Raynor, & McDonald, 2015). At the same time, they do not pay much attention to less demanding customers (Christensen et al., 2015), who are financially less attractive (Christensen, 2006).

Research on this theory is quite extensive but has also been criticised a lot. For instance, Danneels (2004) states that it is not clear when a technology can be defined as disruptive or what specific the criteria are. Christensen (2006) agrees to this critique since disruptive technology composes both low-end disruption and new market disruption. In addition to this critique, Markides (2006) states that a difference must be made between disruptive technological innovations (as defined and explained by Christensen, 1997; 2003), disruptive business models, and radical product innovations. According to Markides (2006), these different innovations emerge in different ways, can have various competitive effects, and therefore require different approaches from incumbent firms.

A disruptive business model, or business model innovation, can be described as the discovery of a complete new business model in an already existing market (Markides, 2006). It is categorised as innovation when this new business model attracts new customers or encourages an increase in consumption by existing customers. Since a disruptive business model attracts different customers, incumbent firms only start adopting the new business model when it has already improved in such a way that it is able to serve both existing and new customers. This is why a business model innovation can be disruptive for incumbent firms. It is difficult to incorporate both the existing and the new business model, thus the point of adoption for the new business model is very important (Markides, 2006). However, it is uncertain when an incumbent firm should adopt the new business model.

Schmidt and Druehl (2008) state that there is no such thing as a disruptive innovation, but that some innovations might be more impactful than others. They divide those innovations

(13)

13 in the categories ‘low-end encroachment’ and ‘high-end encroachment’ and provide an outline to help determine the impact of new innovations for firms (Schmidt & Druehl, 2008). A low-end encroachment can be defined as a disruptive innovation which in its initial phase focuses on the low end of the market and disseminate upwards. On the contrary, a high-end encroachment can be defined as a sustaining innovation which initially focuses on the high end of the market and disseminates downwards. Christensen and colleagues (2015) also mention that it can only be determined if a disruptive innovation truly is disruptive after a certain period of time. Therefore, it is unclear if blockchain can be categorised as a truly disruptive innovation.

2.3. Radical innovation

Beck and Müller-Bloch (2017) state that blockchain can rather be seen as a radical innovation than a disruptive innovation. A radical innovation can be defined as an impactful new technology that offers new benefits and creates whole new businesses (O'Connor, 2006). The capabilities and complementary assets of incumbent firms, on which they have built their success, are attacked because of this radical innovation (Markides, 2006). It differs from a disruptive innovation in the fact that this type of innovation does not have to be harmful for incumbent firms (Christensen, 1997; O'Connor, 2006). Radical innovations are focused at existing or sometimes emerging markets with a new technology, whereas disruptive innovations are merely focused at an emerging market, and does not necessarily involves the latest technology (Govindarajan, Kopalle, & Danneels, 2011). When performing the right activities at the right time, incumbent firms are able to react to a radical innovation.

Furthermore, it differs from an incremental innovation. This pertains the addition of new features to an already existing technology in order to satisfy the needs and wants of customers (Hill & Rothaermel, 2003). Due to incumbent firms’ market power, they invest heavily in incremental innovations to keep up this market power, maintain entry barriers, and increase

(14)

14 existing knowledge (Hill & Rothaermel, 2003). However, when a radical innovation emerges, incumbent firms are pushed towards new markets in which different technologies and business models are used (O'Connor, 2006).

Start-ups often arise in the early days of a radical innovation and are said to be the driving force behind it (O’Connor, 2006). They do not suffer from bureaucracy and can quickly adapt to changes. However, they often face disadvantages as well, such as a lack of resources or brand familiarity. Firms can respond to a radical innovation if they perform three sets of activities over the following phases; discovery, incubation, and acceleration (O’Connor, 2006). Those phases can be described as the process a firm follows while reacting to a radical innovation. Activities in the discovery phase consist of the creation, recognition, elaboration, and articulation of opportunities of a radical innovation. The incubation phase consists of the maturation of a radical innovation into a business proposal for the new market. Lastly, during the acceleration phase, a radical innovation is developed into a business proposal to a point where it becomes separated from the main business platform (O’Connor, 2006). According to Beck and Müller-Bloch (2017) incumbent firms, at least in the financial sector, are already reacting to blockchain. Their case shows that some of them are showing initiatives to move beyond the discovery phase. This indicates that incumbent firms might not find difficulties in reacting to blockchain as a disruptive innovation as research suggests (Christensen, 1997; Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016).

To summarise, a disruptive innovation is merely focused on an emerging or niche market, and does not necessarily involves the most modern technology (Govindarajan et al., 2011). It consists of different features compared to already existing products and services, and is initially focused on less demanding or emerging customers (Christensen, 1997). Over time, it may evolve in such a way that will disrupt incumbent firms. A radical innovation focuses on existing markets with a new technology compared to what already exists (Govindarajan et al.,

(15)

15 2011). It is focused on both existing and emerging markets, but does not necessarily have to disrupt incumbent firms when they react to it according to the three phases with its corresponding activities as defined by O’Connor (2006). A visual representation of the process of a radical innovation is depicted in Figure 1, which is presented below.

Figure 1- Three phases with its corresponding activities (O'Connor, 2006)

Furthermore, research shows that Internet (the driving force of blockchain) shifts industry structures, and the Internet economy leads to a winner-takes-all environment (generally for incumbent firms with the largest budgets; Wang & Zhang, 2015). For the energy sector this might imply that incumbent firms will wait until new business models around blockchain have improved, and in the end will survive because of their large budgets (compared to new firms). However, since it is a relatively new technology it is hard to predict if, and how it will disrupt industries. Therefore, the first part of this studywill focus on whether blockchain can be categorised as a radical innovation for the energy sector and how incumbent firms respond according to the three phases with its corresponding activities as defined by O’Connor (2006).

(16)

16

2.4. New business models

Although new business models can provide new methods of offering existing products or services to customers (Markides, 2006), the question remains how business models will change specifically due to blockchain technology (Lindman, Rossi, & Tuunainen, 2017). To determine how business models for incumbent firms in the energy sector change because of blockchain, it must first be determined what a business model is. Scholars agree that the main purpose of a business model is creating value (Amit & Zott, 2001). However, the number of definitions about business models is quite diverse and extensive (Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011), and there is still no consensus about a precise definition among scholars (Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017).

An early definition is provided by Osterwalder, Pigneur and Tucci (2005), who define it as “a conceptual tool containing a set of objects, concepts and their relationships with the objective to express the business logic of a specific firm” (p.3). This was later translated into a managerial tool, better known as the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). The Business Model Canvas depicts nine building blocks and aims to help practitioners in mapping how an organisation can create, capture, and deliver value (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010). Similar to the findings by Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), Zott and colleagues (2011) found that e-business models contain elements related to a value notion, financial aspects, and aspects related to the architecture of a firm. E-business models are utilised by firms who are doing business over the Internet (Amit & Zott, 2001). These elements can differ for any business model and therefore might be a source of differentiation among firms (Zott et al., 2011).

In their earlier work, Zott & Amit (2010) state that the architecture of an e-business model is depicted by so-called “design elements”, consisting of content, structure, and governance. Content is the selection of information or goods (activities) that is exchanged, how

(17)

17 those activities are linked is referred to as the structure, and governance determines who performs which activity (Zott & Amit, 2010). The “design themes”, which are dominants in creating value, can characterise an e-business model, and consist of novelty (new ways of structuring transactions), lock-in (creating switching costs for customers), complementarities (providing a bundle of activities to offer more value than a single activity does), and efficiency (decrease of cost per transaction; Zott & Amit, 2010). They state that a business model can be defined as “the bundle of specific activities that are conducted to satisfy the perceived needs of the market, including the specification of the parties that conduct these activities (i.e., the focal firm and/or its partners), and how these activities are linked to each other” (Zott & Amit, 2010, p. 217). In this study, this definition will be used, since it focuses on ‘how’ a firm does business rather than ‘what’, ‘when’, or ‘where’ (Zott & Amit, 2010).

Accordingly, Wirtz and colleagues (2016) conducted an in-depth analysis into the components of a business model and found that a business model consists of nine components. They divided it into strategic-, customer and market-, and value creation components, and state that the different components and its partial components are interrelated, since it is not always feasible to separate them (Wirtz et al., 2016). Strategic components consist of a strategy-, resources-, and network model and describe respectively a firm’s value proposition, its core competencies and assets, and its network and partners. Customer and market components consist of a customer-, market offer-, and revenue model. The customer model defines a firm’s customers and distribution channels. The market offer model focuses on the structure of the market, its competitors, and the product and service offering. The revenue structure and streams are defined in the revenue model. Finally, value creation components consist of a manufacturing-, procurement-, and financial model and define the cost structure and how value is created. Figure 2 illustrates the components of Wirtz and colleagues’ (2016) business model.

(18)

18

Figure 2 – The components of an integrated business model (Wirtz et al., 2016)

2.5. Business model change in the energy sector

Previous research concluded that the competitive landscape, market structure, and products and services are likely to change due to blockchain (Nowiński & Kozma, 2017; Wright & De Filippi, 2015). When combined, these three components can be categorised as the market offer model (Wirtz et al., 2016). The market offer model represents a firm’s corporate environment, with a focus on competition and market structure (Wirtz, 2016). It is also used in order to detect and react to tactical manoeuvres from competitors, and new markets can be discovered with the use of this model. Results derived from the analysis of this model results into directions for a firm’s strategy model, which eventually can cause a competitive advantage (Wirtz, 2016).

(19)

19 Nowiński and Kozma (2017) propose that blockchain can be a solution when inefficiencies exist due to the complexity of certain industries. Products and services will change in how they are offered. Blockchain can perform the role of energy distributor, thereafter it would no longer be necessary for households and industrial users to buy their energy from incumbent energy firms anymore (PwC, 2015). Tapscott and Tapscott (2016) stated that, in general, the market structure for many sectors will change as incumbent firms will no longer act as so-called intermediaries. They stated that incumbent firms’ role in the market is rather uncertain, because supply and demand can solved by blockchain. Accordingly, this will also change the competitive position of incumbent firms.

To sum up, Nowiński and Kozma (2017) propose that operational efficiency will increase due to blockchain, which is also one of the design themes stated by Zott and Amit (2010). Lindman and colleagues (2017) state that further research is needed to determine what those new business models look like and who they will be able to benefit the most from this technological development. Therefore, the second part of this study will focus specifically on how the market offer model component from the business model impacts incumbent firms in the energy sector. Accordingly, the impact of components of competitors, products and services, and market structure will be investigated separately.

2.6. Research question and sub questions

From existing literature, it becomes clear that multiple gaps need to be studied. Therefore, this study about blockchain and its effect on business models of incumbent firms in the energy sector is threefold. First, it determines if blockchain technology can be seen as a radical innovation (instead of a disruptive innovation). Second, it investigates which phase incumbent firms are currently in, according to O’Connor’s (2006) three phases with its corresponding activities. Third, the impact of blockchain on business models of incumbent

(20)

20 firms in the energy sector will be examined. To research this impact, the market offer model as proposed by Wirtz and colleagues (2016) will be used. This study will focus on answering the following research question:

How do incumbent firms respond to blockchain as a radical innovation, and how will it impact the market offer model component of business models of incumbent films?

In order to answer this question, several sub questions are formulated. These are based on the disruptive- and radical innovation theory, business model theory, and the gaps identified in current literature.

Blockchain is a technology which can be seen as a new market disruption, since it is a new technology that makes the current position of incumbent firms obsolete. Besides other similarities with the theory of disruptive innovation, blockchain is said to change industries drastically (Nowiński & Kozma, 2017) and incumbent firms have to react in order to survive (Tapscott & Tapscott, 2016). However, Beck and Müller-Bloch (2017) state that blockchain is a radical innovation. Incumbent firms (at least in the financial sector) are already reacting to it according to the three sets of activities (discovery, incubation, acceleration) in its corresponding phases (O’Connor, 2006). In order to assess the impact of blockchain on business models of incumbent firms, a first step is to determine if blockchain is a radical innovation rather than a disruptive innovation. Therefore, the first sub question is:

Sub question 1: Why can blockchain be seen as a radical (rather than a disruptive) innovation for incumbent firms?

If it is a radical innovation, it needs to be determined how incumbent firms respond to blockchain according to the three sets of activities, which are discovery, incubation, and acceleration (O’Connor, 2006). Therefore, the second sub question is:

(21)

21 Sub question 2: How do incumbent firms respond to blockchain in terms of discovery, incubation, and acceleration?

When it is determined how incumbent firms react to blockchain, the impact of this new technology on the components of firms’ business models can be researched. Blockchain creates a decentralised environment in which participants verify all transactions, instead of a trusted third party (Wright & De Filippi, 2015). This will have consequences for the way in which incumbent firms in the energy sector operate at present. Currently, they fulfil the role of intermediary between demand (e.g. by households) and supply of energy, but blockchain technology will be able to fulfil that role (PwC, 2015). This will impact the market offer model component of business models, as described by Wirtz and colleagues (2016). Product and service offerings of incumbent firms will change as well as the competitive landscape and the market structure of the energy sector. This leads to the third sub question:

Sub question 3: How will the market offer model of incumbent firms change because of the impact of blockchain technology?

As the market offer model consists of three subcategories, each subcategory needs to be investigated separately to ascertain its total impact. To determine the impact of blockchain on incumbent firms’ competitors, products and services, and market structure, subsequent sub questions are formulated.

The conventional energy market will change because of blockchain (PwC, 2015). Traditional competitors will no longer be needed as energy supplier, which opens up the chain for new entrants. Consequently, the competitive positioning of incumbent firms is likely to change as well. To determine the impact of blockchain on the competitive positioning of incumbent firms, the following sub question is formulated:

(22)

22 Sub question 3.1: How will the competitive positioning of incumbent firms change because of the impact of blockchain technology?

Furthermore, traditional products and services in the energy market are said to change (PwC, 2015). Blockchain can serve as a platform between energy supply and demand, which will impact incumbent firms’ current service offerings. Existing products and services will disappear, and new ones will appear. To determine this impact, the following sub question is formulated:

Sub question 3.2: How will the products and services of incumbent firms change because of the impact of blockchain technology?

Lastly, blockchain might impact the entire market structure (PwC, 2015). The market structure currently consists of conventional generation, a network and network operators, energy companies, and industrial and residential users, who are paying their energy bills via an intermediary bank. However, households will no longer have to buy their energy from incumbent firms if blockchain will enter in the market structure (PwC, 2015). The following and final sub question will determine this impact:

Sub question 3.3: How will the energy sector’s market structure change because of the impact of blockchain technology?

The next chapter will describe how the research question and the subsequent sub questions will be answered by explaining and justifying the methodological choices.

(23)

23

3. Methodology

This section describes and explains the research methodology of this research. The research design, operationalisation, data collection, and strengths and limitations of the research are discussed subsequently.

3.1. Research design

Multiple research gaps have been identified from the examination of current literature. Firstly, there does not appear to be consensus on whether blockchain can be seen as a disruptive- or a radical innovation. Secondly, very little research has been conducted into the impact of blockchain on business models of incumbent firms. It is not yet determined how the competitive landscape, products and services, and market structure will be impacted specifically and what the consequences for incumbent firms will be.

Therefore, this study will make use of an exploratory research method. This type of research is useful when new phenomena need to be explored (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009). It creates new insights and provides multiple views on the topic. To answer the research question, this study will make use of a case study to gather new insights about this phenomenon (Yin, 2009). More specifically, an embedded multiple case study will be conducted, as multiple cases from different companies will be studied. This research strategy will enhance the reliability and generalisability of this study, since findings across multiple cases can be replicated (Yin, 2009; Baxter & Jack, 2008). This study will be cross-sectional, because all cases are studied in a short period of time (Saunders et al., 2009). This study will make use of an deductive approach. It explores if the theory and models by O’Conner (2006) and Wirtz and colleagues (2016) as delineated in the literature review can be applied to blockchain in the energy sector.

(24)

24

3.2. Data collection

To answer the research question, a mono-method study will be conducted. Semi-structured interviews are used as a data collection method in which a set of predetermined questions is prepared, but the order in which they are asked can differ per interview (Saunders et al., 2009). This method is appropriate since a new phenomenon is explored and makes it possible to adapt the order of questions to the current situation. Both grand tour questions and prompts are asked to reveal all information needed from an interviewee (Leech, 2002). An overview of the interview protocol is presented in the appendix.

The interviews are divided into two parts. The first part of the interview examines whether blockchain can be seen as a disruptive- or radical innovation for incumbent firms in the energy sector. Therefore, multiple questions about both concepts are asked. The second part of the interview explores the impact of blockchain on business models for incumbent firms in the energy sector. The market offer model as proposed by Wirtz and colleagues (2016) is discussed and is divided into three sub parts. These sub parts consist of the impact blockchain has on: the competitive environment, products and services offerings, and the market structure. The division of topics during the interview makes it easier to answer all sub questions. The answers of the sub questions ultimately lead to an answer to the research question. For transcription and replication purposes, all interviews are recorded, and notes are made during the interview.

To establish credible judgement, the number of interviews should be between five and twenty (Rowe & Wright, 2001). However, the exact number of interviews depends on the fact when data saturation is reached (Eisenhardt, 1989), and therefore cannot be determined beforehand. To minimise biased answers, a widely varied group of interviewees is needed (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Therefore, four experts working in different incumbent energy firms, and three experts working outside incumbent energy firms are interviewed. Experts

(25)

25 working inside incumbent energy firms provide information about if and how they are currently responding to blockchain and how they face the impact on their business model. Experts outside energy firms, such as consultants and grid operators, provide a more overarching view for the whole energy sector. This way, various insights are obtained to strengthen the outcome of this study. All seven experts have in-depth knowledge about blockchain and the energy sector, and are primarily accessed via LinkedIn. The snowball technique is used to get into contact with new interviewees. An overview of all experts is shown in table 1, which is presented below.

Table 1

List of Experts

Interviewee Company and

company role

Number of employees

Function / Expertise Date and

duration

Jos Blom Alliander

Grid operator

5.719 Innovation and Strategy

Consultant

06-04-2018 40 min.

Sjors Hijgenaar CGI

Consultancy

72.500 Blockchain Expert Energy

Transition

09-04-2018 35 min. Jorinde Vernooij Eneco

Incumbent firm

7.000 New Business Developer 09-04-2018

36 min.

Yvo Hunink Energy Bazaar

Consultancy

1 Energy and Blockchain

project design

13-04-2018 47 min.

Ruben Appelman Engie

Incumbent firm

153.000 Business Development and

Innovation 18-04-2018 55 min. Michiel Sintenie and Martijn Holtkamp Nuon/Vattenfall Incumbent firm 4.200 Senior Business Development / Process management 23-04-2018 75 min.

Rob Massuger Qurrent

Incumbent firm / scale up

90 Innovation and business

development manager

03-05-2018 42 min.

3.3. Analysis strategy

In order to determine which type of innovation blockchain is (for incumbent firms), and what the specific impact will be on the market offer model component, several concepts are operationalised. This will be further elaborated in the results section, and will make it easier to obtain solid and understandable data and translate it into an answer to this study’s research question. Also, it will strengthen the coding process, as several constructs can be divided more

(26)

26 easily. Before starting the coding process, constructs have been specified a priori in order to structure the preliminary design for the theory building research (Eisenhardt, 1989). Then, axial coding has been used to distinguish topics among the constructs (Charmaz, 2006). Finally, the constructs were analysed by using focused coding.

3.4. Strengths and limitations of the research design

The evaluation of the validity and reliability of a study is important (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010). Validity can be divided into construct-, internal-, and external validity. In this study, construct validity is ensured by using multiple sources of data, such as interviews with experts with various backgrounds, and observations. To ensure internal validity in this study, the determination whether blockchain is a disruptive- or radical innovation is tested according to its corresponding theories (Christensen, 1997; O'Connor, 2006). To test the impact of blockchain on business models, the market offer model proposed by Wirtz and colleagues (2016) is used. A limitation of this research is to obtain solid data triangulation. Only seven interviews are conducted, and no other data sources are used. Therefore, external validity might be hard to assure (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010). However, since general theories are used to test the phenomenon of blockchain in the energy sector, generalisability is increased because it can be tested afterwards in other sectors as well.

A reliable study reaches the same results when the study is replicated by another researcher (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010). In this study, reliability is ensured through recording and transcribing the interviews, with consent of the interviewees. The interview questions are based on criteria derived from general theories of Christensen (1997; 2003) and O’Connor (2006), and the market offer model of Wirtz and colleagues (2016). Moreover, the answers of all open questions are coded.

(27)

27 The next section will describe all results derived from the interviews and concludes with answers to the subsequent sub questions.

(28)

28

4. Results

This section highlights the results derived from the conducted interviews. All sub questions will be discussed separately to find similarities and differences among different cases. First, it will be examined why blockchain can be categorised as either a disruptive- or radical innovation. Second, if it is a radical innovation, it will be described in which phase incumbent firms are currently situated in. Third, the impact on the market offer model will be elaborated according to the three sub questions, and the impact of blockchain on the competitors, products and services, and market structure will be presented consecutively.

4.1. Blockchain as disruptive or radical innovation

To explain the conclusions derived from the interviews, outcomes of answers have been categorised before the interviews were conducted. This will be explained more extensively in the next paragraph. To determine whether blockchain is a disruptive- or a radical innovation, questions were asked such as: “is it equally attractive for incumbent firms to invest in blockchain as it is for new entrants?” and, “is it possible for incumbent firms in the energy sector to react to blockchain?” Those questions made it possible to answer sub question 1: Why can blockchain be seen as a radical (rather than a disruptive) innovation for incumbent firms?

4.1.1. Operationalisation

As previously explained, a disruptive innovation is an innovation which is simpler, less expensive, and focused on new market segments with less demanding customers (Christensen, 1997). It does not necessarily have to involve the latest technology, but rather consists of different features of already existing products and services. It seems unattainable for incumbent firms to react to it, because they do not want to dissatisfy their current customers. Hence, if the

(29)

29 innovation is more interesting for newcomers and less interesting for incumbent firm to react to, it can be categorised as a disruptive innovation.

The conditions for a radical innovation are similar to a disruptive innovation. However, it focuses on a new technology in existing markets (Govindarajan et al., 2011). When a radical innovation emerges it does not have to be harmful for incumbent firms. Incumbent firms are able to react to it according to the three phases with its corresponding activities as defined by O’Connor (2006). Consequently, if it is equally or more interesting to invest in an innovation for incumbent firms than for new entrants, and if these incumbent firms are able to react to it, it can be categorised as a radical innovation.

4.1.2. Results

In the conducted interviews, all experts were in agreement that incumbent firms are able to react to blockchain and that it is interesting for them to invest in. Blockchain can therefore be categorised as a radical innovation.

Attractiveness to react. Results from the interviews showed it is equally or even more

attractive for incumbent firms to react to blockchain. Main constructs supporting this outcome were available funding to invest in blockchain projects for incumbent firms, together with scale advantages and existing relationships. Cost savings and energy source transparency were also found as constructs supporting this outcome.

Various experts mentioned funds were made available for them to set up a blockchain team and test the technology. This enables them to test whether consumers are in need of an energy ‘proof-of-origin’ or not, and if there might be other implications for blockchain technology. Scale advantages and existing relationships are helpful in setting up new blockchain projects, whereas start-ups often do not have this advantage. This is important, as

(30)

30 many interviewees mentioned cooperation between companies as a factor of success regarding blockchain projects.

“It is not that obvious as such parties state. Start-ups often mention they will disrupt the energy market, while I state: you won’t succeed. As a start-up, you have to cooperate with incumbent firms, find the pains and gains in the market and decide whether blockchain can be a solution or not.” Sjors Hijgenaar - CGI

It was also found that blockchain provides another important attractive factor for incumbent firms: cost savings. As noted by an expert, blockchain enables a simplification of back-end processes and consequently assures cost savings. The energy market in the Netherlands is extremely competitive, and new entrants who compete on price are still important competitors for incumbent firms. Hence, if blockchain might facilitate cost savings for incumbent firms, it will be attractive for them to invest in it.

“There is a very fierce competition between suppliers, as every customer equals roughly €10+ profit per head.” Jos Blom - Alliander

“Blockchain technology enables me to simplify our back-end processes. Thus, transactions can be completed much more quickly by generating a single point-of-truth […] so you can lower your costs”. Michiel Sintenie – Nuon/Vattenfall

Furthermore, as some of the experts mentioned, blockchain increases energy source transparency to consumers. This was mentioned as an important implication for incumbent firms, since they can provide their customers with a ‘proof-of-origin’ of their used energy.

Unattractiveness to react. Regarding the attractiveness of investing in blockchain, the

experts noted some considerable disadvantages. The discovered constructs were legacy systems, and uncertainty due to inexperience with blockchain technology.

(31)

31 Some experts mentioned that incumbent firms often experience difficulties in implementing new technologies into their existing processes, which is not a problem for new entrants. Likewise, delays of projects were mentioned, due to uncertainty and inexperience with blockchain technology. As noted by an expert, a lack of access to external blockchain experts exists, which causes inexperience and uncertainty, and delays in the implementation of blockchain.

Ability to react. With regard to reacting, experts noted that incumbent firms were indeed

able to react to blockchain. They mentioned that incumbent firms have to adapt their business models to it in order to react, and for some of them it was already part of their strategy. However, incumbent firms who do not react to this change will face difficulties, since the task they currently fulfil might be automated. One of the experts mentioned the ability to react for incumbent firms as follows:

“In my opinion, this is not a disruptive technology, it is a transformative technology. So, incumbent firms can cope with it, as long as they adapt their current business models and business cases.” Sjors Hijgenaar - CGI

To conclude, blockchain is a radical innovation for incumbent firms in the energy sector for several reasons, as derived from this study’s interviews. First, it is at least equally attractive for incumbent firms to invest in blockchain compared to a start-up due to considerable advantages. Moreover, these incumbent firms are able to react to blockchain. They often have considerate funds available to invest in pilot projects and the ability to test what works and what does not. They also often have scale advantages and existing relationships to set up a blockchain project. Furthermore, blockchain enables cost savings, which is attractive for incumbent firms in a very price competitive energy sector. Lastly, blockchain increases transparency which

(32)

32 facilitates incumbent firms to guarantee energy sources to consumers. All findings are summarised in table 2, which is depicted below.

Table 2

Attractiveness to invest and ability to react in blockchain for incumbent firms

Theme Construct Quotes

Attractive to invest in blockchain

Available funding

“There has been made money available for us to set up a team to look at a proof-of-concept. In that phase, we can build real-life concepts.” Michiel Sintenie – Nuon/Vattenfall

Scale advantages

“It is more difficult for an incumbent firm to react to blockchain compared to a start-up. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that a start-up can disrupt the entire energy market. It is extremely

conservative, with a lot of legislation and firms with a monopoly position […] Don’t say: we do not need incumbents anymore, because how will you cope with the infrastructure, legislation, et cetera. These are all aspects that do not fit in the disruptive model blockchain is said to be.”

Sjors Hijgenaar - CGI

Existing relationships

“We often have contacts with large clients who want to invest in it [blockchain] as well, meaning that you have a well-established relationship in which we can figure out what customers want. This is much more difficult for a start-up.”

Jorinde Vernooij - Eneco

Saving costs “It has less to do with the commodity we are currently selling, but has much more to do with cost savings. And this is especially beneficial for large corporates, so you can lower your costs.”

Michiel Sintenie – Nuon/Vattenfall

Transparency “Almost anyone is pretend to consume green energy, but only a few percentage of green energy is produced. If you can prove that your energy is generated by a particular solar panel or windmill, then you can say: this is green energy, and we have generated it like this.”

Ruben Appelman - Engie Not attractive to

invest in blockchain

Legacy systems “It is very difficult to implement blockchain technology onto existing

processes. Thus, incumbent firms will face many difficulties to incorporate it into their processes.”

Jos Blom - Alliander

Uncertainty “Many companies do not want to switch completely to blockchain because they are unfamiliar with the technology. There is a group of IT-nerds behind every blockchain technology, who are difficult to approach, and who cannot be approached when changes in your system are needed. Thus, there is quite some uncertainty to use it.”

Jos Blom - Alliander Able to react to

blockchain

Adapt “Well, we are a relatively small player in the energy market. We can react and adapt quickly to new technological developments, so for us it is an opportunity rather than a threat.”

(33)

33 “They are definitely able to react to it, but they have to adapt to it as well. The companies who are able to adapt to it, and understand that we will have a decentralised energy structure, well, those companies will take the lead.”

Yvo Hunink - Energy Bazaar

Part of strategy

“Eneco’s strategy is focused on consumers who can produce and trade their energy. That’s called decentralised energy supply, or prosumer. And we cannot pursue this strategy without blockchain, so for us, it is very important that we can provide this for our clients.”

Jorinde Vernooij - Eneco Difficulties in

reacting to blockchain

Change in roles

“Blockchain technology will make it possible to eliminate the supplier’s role, because their tasks will be automated. It can bring together suppliers and customers in order to fulfil transactions. They have to create a complete new role for themselves, which is very difficult.”

4.2. Incumbent firms’ response to blockchain and their current phasing

As it is now determined that blockchain can be categorised as a radical innovation for incumbent firms in the energy sector, the following step is to conclude in which phase they currently reside. In order to establish this phasing, questions about current blockchain projects are asked. Experts’ responses have been compared to the phases as described by O’Connor (2006) to make a solid judgement. These responses made it possible to answer sub question 2: How do incumbent firms respond to blockchain in terms of discovery, incubation, and acceleration?

4.2.1. Results

According to the experts, many incumbent firms are exploring or implementing blockchain projects. The projects described by the experts were merely to test blockchain technology and to explore how it could be implemented for consumers. However, no real-life implementations for consumers were executed yet. Accordingly, it can be determined that incumbent firms currently reside in the discovery phase of blockchain as a radical innovation.

(34)

34

Discovery. Some experts noted their proof-of-concept was nearly finished and,

consequently, they were ascertaining how to proceed. Hence, some incumbent firms were already exploring opportunities to tap into the incubation phase. These findings are presented in table 3.

Table 3

Blockchain projects and its corresponding phase incumbent firms are currently in

Theme Construct Quote

Current phase Discovery “Alliander is executing the Jouliette project at the Ceuvel in Amsterdam […] this is launched in September, after we have built it and talked about it for five months to come up with a first minimal viable product.”

“In my opinion, all our current projects are in the research stage […] we are executing pilot projects, but it is not yet live for our customers.

“Well, our proof-of-concept is finished, and we are now

discovering how to proceed. Also, there have been built a few good prototypes at the hackathon […] and our wholesale trading pilot is almost finished.”

“Blockchain is still in the discovery phase. We do not have any blockchain projects live, because until now we have not found many applications for it.”

Rob Massuger – Qurrent

Incubation “Trading between communities will be the next step. In our current legislation system, a supplier is needed […] and we also need another blockchain technology when our project will be scaled up.”

4.2.2. Factors affecting the development of blockchain projects

According to the experts, further development of current blockchain projects is affected by several factors. The two most prevalent ones are legislation, and implications for consumers as current blockchain projects are merely a technology push.

Legislation. According to the experts, many pilot projects have been launched to

(35)

35 was mentioned as a bottleneck in this process by some interviewees. When energy surpluses are generated by consumers, they are only allowed to sell it to their own energy supplier. Consequently, it was mentioned legislation had to change before any application would become available for consumers.

“The government wants to levy taxes on energy. As long as that is the case, peer-to-peer supply has very little value as consumers have to invest in equipment.” Rob Massuger - Qurrent

“When you have solar panels, you are not allowed to sell any surpluses. Moreover, there is an extreme cumbersome netting scheme to get a sort of return-on-investment on your solar panels, and that’s not sustainable either.” Sjors Hijgenaar - CGI

There’s a conflict between energy and consumer legislation. This means I am allowed to sell apples from my apple tree to anyone I want, or eat them myself, but I am only allowed to use energy generated by the solar panels on my roof by myself or sell it to a supplier.” Jos Blom - Alliander

Technology push. Another reason mentioned by some experts as to why blockchain

projects have not yet been implemented for consumers has to do with implications. Blockchain projects are currently merely executed to test the technology, rather than to find solutions for consumers’ problems. Hence, until now blockchain appears to be a technological advancement rather than a direct solution for customers and the problems they are facing some.

We are working quite some time with blockchain technology now, but we are trying to solve problems with technology as a starting point, and that is extremely difficult […] It is a technology push, rather than it is solving any latent customer needs.” Michiel Sintenie – Nuon/Vattenfall

(36)

36 To conclude, while most incumbent firms in the energy sector currently reside in the discovery phase, some of them are already exploring opportunities to tap into the incubation phase. However, legislation has to change prior to any real-life applications of blockchain becomes available for consumers.

4.3. The impact of blockchain on the market offer model

It is determined that blockchain can be categorised as a radical innovation, and incumbent firms currently reside in the discovery phase. The next step is to determine how blockchain technology will impact their business models. The impact of blockchain on the market offer model is divided in three sub questions as this component consists of three subcategories; competitors, products and services, and the market structure. The impact is determined by comparing the old situation, before blockchain technology existed, to the current situation with the existence of blockchain technology. For each subcategory, several questions are asked to conclusively determine the impact on the market offer model (questions 5-15 in interview protocol in the appendix). This will in turn lead to the answer to sub question 3: How will the market offer model component of business models of incumbent firms change because of the impact of blockchain technology?

4.3.1. The impact of blockchain on competition

To determine whether blockchain will impact the current competitive landscape, experts were asked what would happen to current competitors. Also, the emergence of new competitors and their positioning was discussed. Moreover, it was discussed whether the positioning of new competitors might also be an opportunity for current incumbent firms, and which type of incumbent firm would no longer be necessary. This was discussed to answer sub question 3.1:

(37)

37 How will the competitive positioning of incumbent firms change because of the impact of blockchain technology?

4.3.1.1. Results

Blockchain will have a moderate impact on the competitive landscape for incumbent firms in the energy sector. According to the experts, the competitive landscape will change due to blockchain, but incumbent firms are able to cope with this change.

Current competition. The experts mentioned that there are around thirty companies

active in the Dutch energy market. Large incumbent firms, such as Nuon, Eneco, and Essent, are mainly competing with other incumbent firms at the supply side of the chain by selling as much energy as possible. Smaller incumbent firms are competing in sustainable energy markets. Firms that are solely focusing on selling energy rather than generating any energy were said to be no longer necessary due to blockchain. Furthermore, the experts mentioned that because of the open economy in the Netherlands, which allows free competition, a lot of new entrants have entered the market in the past few years. They all created their own value proposition to attract new customers. One of the experts described it as follows:

“There is a very fierce competition between suppliers. Companies are competing for every customer, as every customer equals €10+ profit per year, thus the size of your client base determines your profit.” Jos Blom - Alliander

New competition and positioning of new competitors. New competitors will emerge

due to blockchain technology. The aggregator was mentioned by the experts as new competitor, together with a peer-to-peer trading provider.

Aggregation involves the matching of energy consumption of consumers and production by consumers. The experts mentioned this could be achieved by peer-to-peer trading providers.

(38)

38 Those companies were said to be responsible for a transparent consumption and production platform, created by blockchain technology. Blockchain was mentioned as a bad marketing instrument, meaning new competitors would position themselves as transparent and innovative companies. It was mentioned they will offer a peer-to-peer delivery combined with a proof-of-origin, which indicates from which source the energy is coming from.

“Well, that they will create a new value for their customers, and that they are not competing with a large incumbent firm such as Engie, but delivering an additional service […] and they have a guaranteed proof-of-origin with blockchain technology, which can lead to many new customers for them.” Ruben Appelman - Engie

Tech companies or companies that originally did not have anything to do with energy were also mentioned by the experts as new competitors. Such as the following example about companies that used to acquire energy sources, such as wind farms, to sell its generated energy to consumers. A tech company is able to set up a blockchain for them, which would mean incumbent energy firms are no longer needed in this process.

“For instance, DSM [science-based firm] which acquired a wind farm together with, I thought it was Google, they are now able to trade their own energy […] and such a blockchain platform does not necessarily have to be developed by us, Google could also do it.” Jorinde Vernooij - Eneco

Incumbent firms’ new role. According to the experts, current incumbent firms can still

play a role in this new market with blockchain technology. Acquiring blockchain platform providers and a positioning as service provider is one of the strategies experts have mentioned. However, as some experts noted, a trusted party also remains needed.

(39)

39 It was said consumers still want service providers who they can approach when a problem with, for instance, their boiler emerges, or who can help them get the cheapest energy available. Accordingly, blockchain technology was mentioned by the experts to be an enabler for incumbent firms to enhance their service levels, which would enable them to create a new role for themselves.

Also, according to the experts, energy is seen as a product of little interest by consumers. Consequently, most consumers supposedly do not want to search actively for the best blockchain application available. They do not want to check the entire process of energy production and consumption. Some experts have mentioned consumers solely want to have a guarantee for the lowest energy bill available. Blockchain technology can help incumbent firms to realise this.

“Energy is perceived as low interest product. Most consumers do not even know what they pay for their energy. Thus, although we are talking about creating more sustainability, the outcome is less interesting for them.” Jos Blom - Alliander

“Households are not interested in the process of getting energy. They simply want energy for the lowest price available or the most sustainable green energy possible.” Sjors Hijgenaar - CGI

To conclude, blockchain will impact the competitive landscape for incumbent firms in the energy sector. Currently, there is a lot of competition among low-cost energy firms all pursuing their own value proposition. Firms that are focusing completely on trading energy, and not on generating energy, are said to be no longer necessary.

Furthermore, new competitors will emerge due to blockchain, and they will position themselves as transparent and innovative. They will focus on offering a blockchain platform for consumers and guaranteeing an energy proof-of-origin. They are not directly competing

(40)

40 with the commodity delivery of current incumbent firms, but merely with innovative services in the energy market. Large firms which originally did not have anything to do with energy are also said to appear as new competitor. They can acquire windfarms, and together with a tech company, can sell this energy on a blockchain platform.

Current incumbent firms will still have a role in this new energy market. They will most likely serve an additional role as service provider, but commodity delivery will still be needed now and in the future due to low interest by consumers in energy. All findings are summarised in table 4, which can be found below.

Table 4

The impact of blockchain on competition

Theme Construct Quotes

Current competition

Incumbent firms “Well, Nuon and Essent are big competitors of course. With them,

we compete on commodity services, just sell as much energy as we can […] and Vandebron, Greenchoice, and Qurrent are competitors in the sustainable markets.”

Deregulated energy supply

“Our market system is based on complete free competition at the supply side. Distribution is regulated, and transmission is owned by the government.”

Sjors Hijgenaar - CGI New

competition and positioning of new

competitors

Aggregator The aggregator is a new player in the market […] new companies will emerge who do not own any assets, such as windmills or gas plants, but are very experienced in optimisation […] and service-as-a-platform might be a positioning. At least no longer with a focus on assets […] mostly as software providers.”

Peer-to-peer trading provider

“New blockchain concepts creates a new role for someone who has to determine the production and consumption of energy by a consumer. That need to be matched, which is called allocating, the allocation of usage data. […] and those results are now put together in a proof-of-concept in a blockchain. Peer-to-peer trading.”

“Maybe a blockchain provider will be sufficient, which arranges the supply and demand of energy usage by blockchain technology […] But blockchain is a bad marketing instrument, because there is a lot of ignorance. They will profile themselves innovative and peer-to-peer, so doing transactions with anyone and they will facilitate it.”

Blockchain and its effect on business models : a study focussed on the energy sector