Search results

This paper aims to understand the main challenges connected with accountability issues across multiple layers of the metaverse, to identify whether and how any techwashing is taking place and to discuss implications for accounting research.

To develop the research, the authors refer to a critical dialogic accountability framework, operationalized in the current paper by leveraging the perspectives of accountability as virtues and as mechanisms (Bovens, 2010). The authors discuss who is accountable to whom, for what and in what manner in a relatively unregulated and unaccountable world, through the layers of virtual reality introduced by MacKenzie et al. (2013) and Llewellyn (2007). Methodologically, the study concentrates on 32 start-ups working in the metaverse selected from the Crunchbase database and relies on interviews, direct observation in the field and white paper reports analyzed by means of NVivo coding.

The findings show how metaverse creators deal with accountability as a virtue and accountability as a mechanism. Companies who operate metaverses primarily consider accountability in the virtual-physical domain, which focuses on developing the necessary internal and external architecture to enable a particular metaverse to function. Metaverse companies also emphasize the virtual-agential dimension that concentrates on onboarding, engaging with and incentivizing individuals in virtual worlds. There is an emphasis on outlining the virtues or standards that metaverse companies aspire to, but there is very little detail provided. Similarly, there are uneven and limited discussions of the mechanisms that can support accountability in most layers of a virtual world.

The analysis raises significant questions about the purpose, scope and use of metaverses, which are still a relatively unregulated and unaccountable world. The paper advances the idea that the current creators of metaverses are “techwashing” their projects, providing a utopian ideal of what their universes will look like but obfuscating the realities of their ventures in tech jargon that few people are likely to understand. Therefore, meaning and truth at all levels of the real and virtual worlds remain unaddressed, with implications to be explored in terms of legitimacy and trust of metaverses and the interests that shape them.

This paper is one of the first to address the issue of accountability in metaverses. It advances an analytical framework to guide future accounting and accountability research into virtual worlds.

The current scenario is dominated by an urgent need for economic recovery caused by the global health emergency that has been at work since January 2020. Digital transformation plays a crucial role in bringing about this recovery. However, the failure rate of digital transformation projects over the last 10 years is very high. Considering the growing demand for digital transformation from businesses, the digital transformation failure rate, if unchanged, could lead to an exponential growth in technical debt. Technical debt is acquired when the digital transformation to be deployed at a business fails. The accumulation of technical debt will lead not only to economic stalemate but possibly also to yet another setback.

The developed set of methodologies form what has been termed the Digital Transformation Governance Engineering Process (DTGEP). This process can help any business wishing to undertake a digital transformation project to materialize their project in a sustainable, productive and competitive way.

DTGEP prevents the generation of technical debt because organizational knowledge is aligned with the technological solution that best suits the needs of each business in order to support its strategic or business objectives.

DTGEP has already been used to successfully discover the relationship between business features and the prospective digital transformation. However, it needs to be applied in case studies on many other businesses across the economy in order to gather more accurate information that could be clustered by sectors.

DTGEP was tested on a set of 25 projects, and this paper reports several interesting findings regarding its use, like the impact of the digital transformation on different parts of the business model canvas (BMC) and the intellectual capital of the organization developing the digital transformation, and how the status of the organization's intangible assets affects the decision-making process with respect to the prospective digital transformation.