Continuous Audits and Blockchain Technology within Stakeholder Theory: BIST IT Sector Companies in Türkiye

Öz

This study evaluates the role of blockchain technology in continuous audits based on stakeholder theory. We used a mixed-method approach, including a survey of 133 participants from the IT sector in the BIST 100 index and interviews with three individuals. This study developed a new questionnaire, and reliability, exploratory, and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted. Canonical correlation analysis was used to test the hypotheses, and descriptive analysis assessed participant responses. Results indicate positive, mid-level relationships between blockchain and continuous audits (32%), blockchain and stakeholder theory (48%), and continuous audits and stakeholder theory (40%). Executives and managers expressed distrust of blockchain but believed it could positively impact stakeholder theory and continuous audits, provided all stakeholders adopted it. The qualitative interview results reinforced the main findings, with participants highlighting the need for legal frameworks, particularly in accounting and auditing, to align blockchain with regulations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Blockchain Technology
• Continuous Audit
• Stakeholder Theory
• Stakeholder
• Audit

Destekleyen Kurum

The funding of the study was supported by Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University Scientific Research Center with project number 09-D-22.

Proje Numarası

project number 09-D-22.

Etik Beyan

In this study, official permission was obtained from the Ethics Committee of Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, a university in Turkey, for the collection of quantitative and qualitative analysis data.

Continuous Audits and Blockchain Technology within Stakeholder Theory: BIST IT Sector Companies in Türkiye

Öz

Araştırma sürekli denetim uygulanmasında blokzinciri teknolojisinin kullanımının paydaş teorisi kapsamında değerlendirilmesini amaçlamaktadır. Araştırmada karma yöntem kullanılmıştır. Araştırma BIST 100 endeksinde Bilişim Sektöründe yapılmıştır. Araştırmada anket verileri 133 katılımcıdan elde edilmiştir. Nitel analiz için 3 katılımcı ile görüşme yapılmıştır. Araştırma için yeni anket geliştirilmiş güvenilirlik analizi, keşfedici ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri uygulanmıştır. Araştırmanın hipotez testi için kanonik korelasyon analizi yapılmıştır. Ayrıca araştırmada katılımcıların ifadelere katılımlarının değerlendirilmesi için betimleyici analiz uygulanmıştır. Blokzinciri-sürekli denetim (%32), blokzinciri- paydaş teorisi arasında (%48) pozitif yönde ve orta düzeyli bir ilişki olduğu tespit edilmiŞtir. Sürekli denetim ile paydaş teorisi arasında pozitif yönde (%40) orta düzeyli bir ilişki olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Nicel analiz sonuçlarına göre üst düzey yönetici ve müdür pozisyonundaki katılımcıların blokzinciri teknolojisine güven duymadıkları tespit edilmiştir. Katılımcılar blokzinciri teknolojisinin paydaş teorisi kapsamında ve sürekli denetim hususunda olumlu etkilerinin olacağını belirtmişlerdir. Katılımcılar sürekli denetimde blokzinciri teknolojisinin ancak ekosistemdeki tüm paydaşlar tarafından kullanılması halinde verimli olacağını düşünmektedirler. Nitel görüşme sonuçları nicel analiz sonucunu desteklemekte olup, görüşme sonucunda teknolojinin özellikle muhasebe/denetim alanlarında uygulanması için hukuki boyutlarının oluşturulması ve mevzuata uygun yapı sergilemesi gerektiği katılımcılar tarafından ifade edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Blockchain
• denetim
• sürekli denetim
• paydaş

Destekleyen Kurum

Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Proje Birimi

Proje Numarası

project number 09-D-22.

Etik Beyan

Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Etik Kurulundan gerekli etik izin alınmıştır

Kaynakça

1. Aboa, Y. P. (2014). Continuous auditing: Technology involved. Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Undergraduate Honors Theses.
2. Ağgül, S., & Öndeş, T. (2020). Fundamental objectives and implementation conditions of continuous auditing practices: A study in ISO 500 large industrial enterprises. Journal of Business Research, 12(4), 3550–3568.
3. AICPA, C. V. (2017). Blockchain technology and its potential impact on the audit and assurance profession. Deloitte Development LLC.
4. Aktan, C. C., & Börü, D. (2007). Corporate social responsibility: Business and social responsibility. In C. C. Aktan (Ed.), İGİAD Publications (pp. 11–36).
5. Alkan, B. Ş. (2021). Real-time blockchain accounting system as a new paradigm. Journal of Accounting and Finance, (Special Issue), 41–58.
6. Arslan, G. (2019). Mediating role of self-esteem and resilience in the association between social exclusion and life satisfaction among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109514.
7. Aytaç, M., & Öngen, B. (2012). Examination of construct validity of the New Environmental Paradigm Scale with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Statisticians, (5), 14–22.
8. Bonnafous-Boucher, M., & Rendtorff, J. (2016). Stakeholder theory: A model for strategic management. Springer.

9. Boydaş, H., & Hazar, H. (2013). Use of digital analysis technique in continuous auditing and an application [Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University].
10. Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2004). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 12 and 13: A guide for social scientists. Routledge.
11. Bumgarner, N., & Vasarhelyi, M. (2018). Continuous auditing—A new view. In C. Victoria, D. Chan, & M. Vasarhelyi (Eds.), Continuous auditing: Theory and application (pp. 7–52). Emerald Publishing.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2017). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Edam.
13. Coyne, J. G., & McMickle, P. L. (2017). Can blockchains serve an accounting purpose? Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(2), 101–111.
14. Dai, J., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2017). Toward blockchain-based accounting and assurance. Journal of Information Systems, 31(3), 5–21.
15. Demir, S. (2022). Comparison of normality tests in terms of sample sizes under different skewness and kurtosis coefficients. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 397–409.
16. Edward, F., & Shannon, S. (1984). Stakeholder management and industrial marketing. Strategic Management Research Center, Indiana University.
17. Erhan, D. U. (2012). The contribution of electronic reporting techniques to financial reporting and auditing in the context of the new Turkish Commercial Code. Journal of Accounting Science World, (3), 157–176.
18. Erkorkmaz, Ü., Etikan, İ., Demir, O., Özdamar, K., & Sanisoğlu, S. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis and fit indices. 13th National Biostatistics Congress, 33(1), 210–223.
19. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
20. Freeman, R., Phillips, R., & Sisodia, R. (2018). Tensions in stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 59(2), 1–19.
21. Freeman, R., & Velamuri, S. (2006). A new approach to CSR: Company stakeholder responsibility. In A. Kakabadse & M. Morsing (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility (pp. 9–23). Springer.
22. FY2015 Report. (2016). Survey on blockchain technologies and related services FY2015 report. Nomura Research Institute.
23. Güner, M. (2021). A scale development study to determine perceptions of blockchain technology use in accounting. Journal of Accounting and Finance, (Special Issue), 459–472.
24. Hair, J., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (1987). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Macmillan.
25. Harris, G. (2022). The relationship between environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings and firms’ return as expressed by corporations’ profitability [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University].
26. Holotiuk, F., Pisani, F., & Moormann, J. (2017). The impact of blockchain technology on business models in the payments industry. 13th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, 912–926.
27. Im, I., Hong, S., & Kang, M.-S. (2011). An empirical test of a modified technology acceptance model of Internet industry. Journal of Global Information Management, 19(3), 23–41.
28. Inghirami, I. E. (2019). Accounting information systems in the time of blockchain. ITAIS 2018 Conference, 1–16.
29. Joshi, P., & Marthandan, G. (2020). Continuous internal auditing: Can big data analytics help? International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 16(1), 25–43.
30. Kahyaoğlu, S. B., Sarikaya, R., & Topal, B. (2020). Continuous auditing as a strategic tool in public sector internal audit: The Turkish case. Selçuk University Journal of Social Sciences Vocational School, 23(1), 208–225.
31. Kaplanoğlu, E. (2014). Main causes and possible consequences of occupational stress: A study on CPAs in Manisa. Journal of Accounting and Finance, (64), 131–150.
32. Kozlowski, S. (2018). An audit ecosystem to support blockchain-based accounting and assurance. In Continuous Auditing. Emerald Publishing.
33. Köse, E., & Çetinel, T. (2017). Corporate and integrated reporting: A research study. Siirt University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, (8), 162–189.
34. Maffei, M., Casciello, R., & Meucci, F. (2021). Blockchain technology: Uninvestigated issues emerging from an integrated view within accounting and auditing practices. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(2), 462–476.
35. Malik, M. (2015). Value-enhancing capabilities of CSR: A brief review of contemporary literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 127, 419–438.
36. Marques, R., ve Santos, C. (2017). Research on Continuous Auditing A Bibliometric Analysis. IEEE https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7976048, 1-4.
37. Miles, S. (2019). Stakeholder theory and accounting. In J. Harrison, J. Barney, R. Freeman, & R. Phillips (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Stakeholder Theory (pp. 173–188). Cambridge University Press.
38. Murray, J. (2018). The coming world of blockchain: A primer for accountants and auditors. The CPA Journal. Retrieved from https://www.cpajournal.com/2018/06/19/the-coming-world-of-blockchain/
39. Özcan, B. K. (2019). İşletmelerin sürdürülebilirliği açısından iç denetimin rolü ve önemi (Doctoral dissertation, Thesis (PhD). İstanbul Okan Üniversity).
40. Özgül, B. (2016). Uluslararası iç denetim standartları çerçevesinde yapılan iç denetim faaliyeti ve kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik ilişkisi: BİST sürdürülebilirlik endeksi’ne tabi şirketlerde anket çalışması. Yayınlanmamış yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, İşletme Anabilim Dalı Muhasebe Denetimi Bilim Dalı, İstanbul.
41. Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. A., & Espadanal, M. (2014). Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Information & Management, 51(5), 497–510.
42. Parmar, B., Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Colle, S., ve Purnell, L. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. The Academy of Management Annals, 1-57.
43. Rozario, A. M., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2018). Auditing with smart contracts. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 18, 1–27.
44. Shrestha, A., & Vassileva, J. (2019). User acceptance of blockchain‑based systems: An extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) approach. Frontiers in Blockchain, 2, 10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8157082.
45. Smith, S. S. (2015). Accounting, Governance and Stakeholder Reporting, and Economic. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 76-80.
46. Solak, B., Gönen, S., & Rasgen, M. (2017). Muhasebe Meslek Mensuplarının Entegre Raporlamaya İlişkin Farkındalık Düzeylerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Alan Araştırması. World of Accounting Science, 19(1).
47. Suddaby, R., Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2017). Conceptualizing institutionalization: Theorization and institutional analysis. Research in Organizational Behavior, 37, 71–97.
48. Sultankhanova, G., & Yanık, S. (2021). Finansal Bilgi Kullanıcıların Sürdürülebilirlik Raporu İle Güvence Denetimi Konusundaki Algıları ve Farkındalıkları. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 20(62), 41-58.
49. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
50. Taherdoost, H. (2022). A critical review of blockchain acceptance models — Blockchain technology adoption frameworks and applications. Computers, 11(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers11020024.
51. Ünsal, E., & Kocaoğlu, Ö. (2018). Blok zinciri teknolojisi: Kullanım alanları, açık noktaları ve gelecek beklentileri. Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, (13), 54-64.
52. Vernocchi, M., & Toggwyler, A. (2021). How can a data-driven audit approach increase business confidence? EY Assurance. Retrieved from https://www.ey.com/en_gl/assurance/how-the-data-driven-audit-can-increase-trust-in-business.
53. Yaşlıoğlu, M. M. (2017). Sosyal Bilimlerde Faktör Analizi Ve Geçerlilik: Keşfedici Ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizlerinin Kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, (46), 74-85.
54. Yazıcıoğlu, Y., ve Erdoğan, S. (2004). SPSS uygulamalı bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Detay Yayıncılık, Ankara, (s 53).
55. Weib, T. (2017). Blockchain: A Digital System for Real-World Sustainability. Reset Digital For Good: https://en.reset.org/blockchain-eine-neue-technologie-grossem-potenzial-fuer-eine-nachhaltige-entwicklung-08072/, 04. 08.2022.
56. Williams, S. P. (2020). Blockchain: The future of everything. Kaknüs Publishing.
57. Wilson, M. (2003). Corporate sustainability: What is it and where does it come from? Ivey Business Journal, 67(6), 1–5.