Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Barriers to Technology Adoption in SMEs’ Sustainability Accounting: A Conceptual Model Based on the TOE–Institutional Theory Framework

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1 , 37 - 47 , 29.04.2026

Zeliha Sünbül Koçak

https://izlik.org/JA34DB49MW

Öz

This study examines, from a theoretical perspective, the barriers that constrain the adoption of digital technologies in the sustainability accounting practices of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Drawing on an integration of the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework and Institutional Theory, the study analyzes internal factors (technological infrastructure deficiencies and organizational resistance) and external factors (regulatory uncertainties and institutional pressures) through a holistic conceptual model. The developed model systematically reveals the interactive effects of these factors on SMEs’ sustainability accounting performance. The findings indicate that the transition to digital sustainability accounting extends beyond a purely technical transformation, constituting a multidimensional process that encompasses institutional learning and the pursuit of legitimacy. The study offers strategic recommendations for policymakers and scholars to accelerate the digital transformation of SMEs and provides an original theoretical contribution to the existing literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

SMEs Sustainability accounting Digital transformation TOE framework Institutional theory

Etik Beyan

This study has been prepared in accordance with the principles of scientific research and publication ethics. No data collection methods requiring ethics committee approval (such as surveys, interviews, or experiments) were used during the research process. All sources cited in the study have been referenced properly in line with academic integrity standards. During the stages of language editing, conceptual model development, and stylistic refinement, the ChatGPT (GPT-5) large language model developed by OpenAI was utilized. ChatGPT was employed solely for linguistic and stylistic purposes; all scientific content, analyses, and interpretations are entirely the author’s original contribution.

Kaynakça

  • Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A., Vasarhelyi, M., & Yan, Z. (2017). Impact of business analytics and enterprise systems on managerial accounting. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 25, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2017.03.003
  • Baker, J. (2012). The technology–organization–environment framework. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.), Information systems theory (pp. 231–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12
  • Borga, F., Citterio, A., Noci, G., & Pizzurno, E. (2009). Sustainability report in small enterprises: Case studies in Italian SMEs. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(8), 512–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.561
  • Cohen, J., & Simnett, R. (2015). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50876
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  • De Villiers, C., Hsiao, P. K., Zambon, S., & Magnaghi, E. (2022). Sustainability, non-financial, integrated, and value reporting (extended external reporting): A conceptual framework and an agenda for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(3), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-04-2022-1640
  • Del Giudice, M., & Della Peruta, M. R. (2016). The impact of IT-based knowledge management systems on internal venturing and innovation: A structural equation modeling approach to corporate performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2015-0257
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  • Garzella, S., Fiorentino, R., Caputo, A., & Lardo, A. (2021). Business model innovation in SMEs: The role of boundaries in the digital era. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1787374
  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
  • Higgins, C., Stubbs, W., & Milne, M. (2018). Is sustainability reporting becoming institutionalised? The role of an issues-based field. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2931-7
  • IFRS Foundation. (2023). IFRS sustainability disclosure standards (IFRS S1 and S2).
  • Kumar, R., Dutta, G., & Phanden, R. K. (2025). Digitalization adoption barriers in the context of sustainability and operational excellence: Implications for SMEs. Engineering Management Journal, 37(4), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2024.2372519
  • Lazol, İ., Muğal, E., & Yücel, Y. (2008). Sürdürülebilir bir çevre için çevre muhasebesi ve KOBİ’lere yönelik bir araştırma. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 38, 56–69. https://izlik.org/JA33NL75CN
  • Lisi, S., Mignacca, B., & Grimaldi, M. (2024). Non-financial reporting and SMEs: A systematic review, research agenda, and novel conceptualization. Journal of Management & Organization, 30, 600–622. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.43
  • Maroufkhani, P., Tseng, M. L., Iranmanesh, M., Ismail, W. K. W., & Khalid, H. (2020). Big data analytics adoption: Determinants and performances among small to medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Information Management, 54, Article 102190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102190
  • OECD. (2023). SME and entrepreneurship outlook 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/342b8564-en
  • Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 110–121.
  • Omrani, N., Rejeb, N., Maalaoui, A., Dabić, M., & Kraus, S. (2022). Drivers of digital transformation in SMEs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 5030–5043. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3215727
  • OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (October 2025 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/
  • Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9186-2
  • Rahman, H. U., Zahid, M., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2023). ESG and firm performance: The rarely explored moderation of sustainability strategy and top management commitment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 404, Article 136859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136859
  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  • Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2018). Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability accounting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 147(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2938-0
  • Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  • Scupola, A. (2009). SMEs’ e-commerce adoption: Perspectives from Denmark and Australia. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(1/2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390910932803
  • Senal, S., & Aslantaş Ateş, B. (2012). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik için muhasebe ve raporlama. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 36, 83–98.
  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
  • Şahin, Z., & Çankaya, F. (2018). KOBİ’lerde sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması ve Türkiye örneği. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(4), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.552694
  • Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). Processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books.
  • TÜRMOB. (2023). KOBİ’ler için sürdürülebilir geçişe yönelik 5 adımlık başlangıç rehberi. TÜRMOB Uluslararası, 17(96). https://online.fliphtml5.com/nitus/klxl/#p=1
  • Vasarhelyi, M. A., Kogan, A., & Tuttle, B. M. (2015). Big data in accounting: An overview. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51071
  • Yolusever, A. (2024). Teknolojik gelişim ve KOBİ’ler: Genel bir literatür incelemesi ve teknolojik gelişime uyum sağlama sürecinin evrimsel oyun teorisi ile modellenmesi. Journal of Economics, Business and International Relations (JEBI), 3(1), 17–47. https://doi.org/10.58654/jebi.1401459
  • Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective. Management Science, 52(10), 1557–1576. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487

KOBİ’lerin Sürdürülebilirlik Muhasebesinde Teknoloji Benimsemelerinin Önündeki Engeller: TOE–Kurumsal Teori Temelli Kavramsal Bir Model Önerisi

Yıl 2026, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1 , 37 - 47 , 29.04.2026

Zeliha Sünbül Koçak

https://izlik.org/JA34DB49MW

Öz

Bu çalışma, küçük ve orta ölçekli işletmelerin (KOBİ) sürdürülebilirlik muhasebesi pratiklerinde dijital teknoloji benimsemesini kısıtlayan engelleri kuramsal bir perspektiften ele almaktadır. Teknoloji-Organizasyon-Çevre (TOE) çerçevesi ile Kurumsal Teori'nin entegrasyonuna dayanan bu çalışmada, içsel faktörler (teknolojik altyapı yetersizlikleri ve örgütsel direnç) ile dışsal faktörler (düzenleyici belirsizlikler ve kurumsal baskılar) bütüncül bir kavramsal model aracılığıyla analiz edilmektedir. Geliştirilen model, söz konusu faktörlerin KOBİ'lerin sürdürülebilirlik muhasebesi performansı üzerindeki etkileşimsel etkilerini bütüncül bir yaklaşımla ortaya koymaktadır. Araştırma bulguları, dijital sürdürülebilirlik muhasebesine geçişin salt teknik bir dönüşümün ötesinde, kurumsal öğrenme ve meşruiyet kazanımını kapsayan çok boyutlu bir süreç niteliği taşıdığını göstermektedir. Çalışma; politika yapıcılara ve akademisyenlere yönelik KOBİ'lerin dijital dönüşümünü hızlandırmaya ilişkin stratejik öneriler sunmakta ve mevcut yazına özgün bir kuramsal katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

KOBİ Sürdürülebilirlik muhasebesi Dijital dönüşüm TOE modeli Kurumsal teori

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma insan veya hayvan katılımcıları içermemektedir. Tüm prosedürler bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uygun olarak gerçekleştirilmiş olup, atıfta bulunulan tüm çalışmalar uygun şekilde kaynak gösterilmiştir.

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu araştırma için herhangi bir dış finansman alınmamıştır.

Teşekkür

Yazar herhangi bir kişi veya kuruma teşekkür etmek istememektedir.

Kaynakça

  • Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A., Vasarhelyi, M., & Yan, Z. (2017). Impact of business analytics and enterprise systems on managerial accounting. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 25, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2017.03.003
  • Baker, J. (2012). The technology–organization–environment framework. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.), Information systems theory (pp. 231–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12
  • Borga, F., Citterio, A., Noci, G., & Pizzurno, E. (2009). Sustainability report in small enterprises: Case studies in Italian SMEs. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(8), 512–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.561
  • Cohen, J., & Simnett, R. (2015). CSR and assurance services: A research agenda. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 34(1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50876
  • Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  • De Villiers, C., Hsiao, P. K., Zambon, S., & Magnaghi, E. (2022). Sustainability, non-financial, integrated, and value reporting (extended external reporting): A conceptual framework and an agenda for future research. Meditari Accountancy Research, 30(3), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-04-2022-1640
  • Del Giudice, M., & Della Peruta, M. R. (2016). The impact of IT-based knowledge management systems on internal venturing and innovation: A structural equation modeling approach to corporate performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(3), 484–498. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2015-0257
  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
  • Garzella, S., Fiorentino, R., Caputo, A., & Lardo, A. (2021). Business model innovation in SMEs: The role of boundaries in the digital era. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 33(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1787374
  • Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage.
  • Higgins, C., Stubbs, W., & Milne, M. (2018). Is sustainability reporting becoming institutionalised? The role of an issues-based field. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2931-7
  • IFRS Foundation. (2023). IFRS sustainability disclosure standards (IFRS S1 and S2).
  • Kumar, R., Dutta, G., & Phanden, R. K. (2025). Digitalization adoption barriers in the context of sustainability and operational excellence: Implications for SMEs. Engineering Management Journal, 37(4), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2024.2372519
  • Lazol, İ., Muğal, E., & Yücel, Y. (2008). Sürdürülebilir bir çevre için çevre muhasebesi ve KOBİ’lere yönelik bir araştırma. Muhasebe ve Finansman Dergisi, 38, 56–69. https://izlik.org/JA33NL75CN
  • Lisi, S., Mignacca, B., & Grimaldi, M. (2024). Non-financial reporting and SMEs: A systematic review, research agenda, and novel conceptualization. Journal of Management & Organization, 30, 600–622. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2023.43
  • Maroufkhani, P., Tseng, M. L., Iranmanesh, M., Ismail, W. K. W., & Khalid, H. (2020). Big data analytics adoption: Determinants and performances among small to medium-sized enterprises. International Journal of Information Management, 54, Article 102190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102190
  • OECD. (2023). SME and entrepreneurship outlook 2023. https://doi.org/10.1787/342b8564-en
  • Oliveira, T., & Martins, M. F. (2011). Literature review of information technology adoption models at firm level. Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, 14(1), 110–121.
  • Omrani, N., Rejeb, N., Maalaoui, A., Dabić, M., & Kraus, S. (2022). Drivers of digital transformation in SMEs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 5030–5043. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2022.3215727
  • OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (October 2025 version) [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/
  • Perrini, F. (2006). SMEs and CSR theory: Evidence and implications from an Italian perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9186-2
  • Rahman, H. U., Zahid, M., & Al-Faryan, M. A. S. (2023). ESG and firm performance: The rarely explored moderation of sustainability strategy and top management commitment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 404, Article 136859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136859
  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  • Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. (2018). Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability accounting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 147(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2938-0
  • Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
  • Scupola, A. (2009). SMEs’ e-commerce adoption: Perspectives from Denmark and Australia. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(1/2), 152–166. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410390910932803
  • Senal, S., & Aslantaş Ateş, B. (2012). Kurumsal sürdürülebilirlik için muhasebe ve raporlama. Muhasebe ve Denetime Bakış, 36, 83–98.
  • Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
  • Şahin, Z., & Çankaya, F. (2018). KOBİ’lerde sürdürülebilirlik raporlaması ve Türkiye örneği. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 18(4), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.552694
  • Tornatzky, L. G., Fleischer, M., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1990). Processes of technological innovation. Lexington Books.
  • TÜRMOB. (2023). KOBİ’ler için sürdürülebilir geçişe yönelik 5 adımlık başlangıç rehberi. TÜRMOB Uluslararası, 17(96). https://online.fliphtml5.com/nitus/klxl/#p=1
  • Vasarhelyi, M. A., Kogan, A., & Tuttle, B. M. (2015). Big data in accounting: An overview. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51071
  • Yolusever, A. (2024). Teknolojik gelişim ve KOBİ’ler: Genel bir literatür incelemesi ve teknolojik gelişime uyum sağlama sürecinin evrimsel oyun teorisi ile modellenmesi. Journal of Economics, Business and International Relations (JEBI), 3(1), 17–47. https://doi.org/10.58654/jebi.1401459
  • Zhu, K., Kraemer, K. L., & Xu, S. (2006). The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: A technology diffusion perspective. Management Science, 52(10), 1557–1576. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0487
Toplam 34 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Sürdürülebilirlik Muhasebesi ve Raporlama
Bölüm Araştırma Makalesi
Yazarlar

Zeliha Sünbül Koçak 0000-0002-6801-982X

Gönderilme Tarihi 19 Ekim 2025
Kabul Tarihi 17 Mart 2026
Yayımlanma Tarihi 29 Nisan 2026
IZ https://izlik.org/JA34DB49MW
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2026 Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1

Kaynak Göster

APA Sünbül Koçak, Z. (2026). KOBİ’lerin Sürdürülebilirlik Muhasebesinde Teknoloji Benimsemelerinin Önündeki Engeller: TOE–Kurumsal Teori Temelli Kavramsal Bir Model Önerisi. İşletme Bilimi ve Uygulamaları Dergisi, 6(1), 37-47. https://izlik.org/JA34DB49MW

ISBUD | JBSA


 

34004   34006     35687 3400734008