Search results

This study aims to ascertain the intentions of risk managers to use artificial intelligence in performing their tasks by examining the factors affecting their motivation.

The study employs an integrated theoretical framework that merges the third version of the technology acceptance model 3 (TAM3) and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) based on the application of the structural equation model with partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) estimation on data gathered through a Likert-based questionnaire disseminated among Italian risk managers. The survey reached 782 people working as risk professionals, but only 208 provided full responses. The final response rate was 26.59%.

The findings show that social influence, perception of external control and risk perception are the main predictors of risk professionals' intention to use artificial intelligence. Moreover, performance expectancy (PE) and effort expectancy (EE) of risk professionals in relation to technology implementation and use also appear to be reasonably reliable predictors.

Thus, the study offers a precious contribution to the debate on the impact of automation and disruptive technologies in the risk management domain. It complements extant studies by tapping into cultural issues surrounding risk management and focuses on the mostly overlooked dimension of individuals.

Yet, thanks to its quite novel theoretical approach; it also extends the field of studies on artificial intelligence acceptance by offering fresh insights into the perceptions of risk professionals and valuable practical and policymaking implications.

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.