Blockchain and the Future of Sustainable Corporate Accounting: A Behavioral Perspective from Vietnam’s Manufacturing Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) How would the findings differ if the study were conducted in other industries or regions? Would the identified factors and their relative importance remain the same or vary significantly?

(2) How can the study address the potential for social desirability bias in self-reported data? Would including additional data sources, such as objective measures of blockchain adoption or interviews with key stakeholders, provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture?

(3) What are the potential implications of the lack of a clear legal framework for blockchain adoption in financial accounting in Vietnam? How can policymakers and regulatory bodies address this challenge to promote wider adoption?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the manuscript is generally clear and well-written, with few grammar errors or typos. However, there are some areas where the language could be further improved for clarity and precision:
(1)Complex sentences: Some sentences are overly long and complex, making them difficult to parse and understand. Consider breaking them down into shorter, simpler sentences to improve readability.
(2)Jargon and technical terms: While the paper is written for an academic audience, it is important to ensure that jargon and technical terms are clearly defined and explained, especially for readers who may not be familiar with the specific concepts related to blockchain and accounting technology.
(3)Vocabulary: There is potential to vary the vocabulary and avoid repetition of similar words and phrases. Using a thesaurus can help identify synonyms and enhance the overall flow of the text.
(4)Sentence structure: Some sentences could benefit from a more varied structure to add variety and interest to the writing.
Here are a few examples of areas where language improvements could be made:
(1)Originality paragraph: "Although there have been many studies on factors influencing the intention to adopt blockchain in corporate accounting, there are still some research gaps that need to be explored to better understand the motivations and barriers of this technology in the accounting context."
(2)Suggestion: "While numerous studies have investigated the factors influencing the intention to adopt blockchain technology in corporate accounting, further research is needed to delve into the specific motivations and barriers that exist within the accounting context."
(3)Theoretical Framework section: "The TPB suggests that the intention to perform a behavior is influenced by three main factors: attitude toward behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control."
(4)Suggestion: "According to the TPB, the intention to engage in a particular behavior is determined by three key factors: individual attitude, subjective social norms, and perceived behavioral control."
(5)Hypotheses Development section: "Effort expectancy refers to the ease with which individuals believe they can use a new technology."
(6)Suggestion: "Effort expectancy refers to the degree of ease or difficulty individuals perceive when using a new technology."
Overall, the manuscript is well-written and the language is generally clear. By addressing these suggestions for improvement, the clarity and impact of the paper can be further enhanced.

Author Response

RESPONSE REPORT TO REVIEWER’ COMMENTS

The authors would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewer for detailed comments and suggestions. These are very valuable and precious comments, helping the authors to complete the article. The authors have absorbed and revised the entire article according to the comments of the reviewer. We have re-edited and revised the content in all sections to complete the article according to the comments. Below are our detailed explanations, improvements and revision (in red text) according to each point of the reviewer' comments. We have also reviewed and revised the entire article in terms of content, language and form to improve the quality of the article (Please see the revised manuscript for more details). The authors hope to receive the consideration and approval of the editor and reviewer.

Reviewer 1:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1:

How would the findings differ if the study were conducted in other industries or regions? Would the identified factors and their relative importance remain the same or vary significantly?

Response:

Thanks for this very good suggestion. The authors have added in the Discussions (Part 5) of the revised paper about the above suggestions and the implications for different industries and regions, as follow:

‘…The above findings were conducted in the context of manufacturing industries in Vietnam. If the study were conducted in industries other than manufacturing or in regions other than Vietnam, the results may be different in terms of both the influencing factors and the level of impact of each factor on the intention to adopt blockchain in financial accounting. In highly digitized industries such as finance and banking, factors such as trust in technology, data security, and the ability to integrate new technology may play a more prominent role than the expectation of effort or cost of implementation. Meanwhile, in public service or education industries – where public budgets are often limited – the perception of cost and favorable conditions may become the main barriers. In particular, in industries with distributed accounting systems such as logistics or construction, blockchain may be highly appreciated for its ability to integrate and make data transparent, making the expectation of efficiency a dominant factor in adoption behavior. Regionally, in developed countries with strong technological foundations and clear policy support, trust in technology and social influence from accounting professionals or associations may play a larger role in driving adoption behavior. Meanwhile, in developing countries where technology investment and legal frameworks for blockchain are lacking, factors such as implementation costs, technical support, and internal training become top priorities. These differences suggest that theoretical models such as UTAUT or TPB need to be flexibly adjusted according to the industry context and applicable region. Blockchain implementation in financial accounting should not follow a “one-size-fits-all” model, but should be based on industry specificity, technological maturity, and regulatory environment…’

Comment 2:

How can the study address the potential for social desirability bias in self-reported data? Would including additional data sources, such as objective measures of blockchain adoption or interviews with key stakeholders, provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture?

Response:

Thank you for your comment and suggestion! We have added this suggestion on the potential for social desirability bias in self-reported data and how to reduce this bias in the revised paper (section Methodology), as follow:

‘…This study used a self-administered questionnaire; a common risk is social desirability bias, when respondents choose the “correct” answer according to social expectations rather than reflecting their actual thoughts or behaviors. In the context of studying blockchain adoption intentions in accounting, this is likely to happen because blockchain is seen as a modern, positive technology, which can make respondents rate it higher than it actually is to show off their or their organization's progress. To limit this problem, the study ensured anonymity and confidentiality of personal information, to create a sense of security when answering. In addition, designing the questions in a neutral, non-leading direction, incorporating reverse questions helps detect or reduce bias. Moreover, the introduction of the survey clearly stated the commitment to research ethics, ensuring that the information is only for academic purposes and does not affect individuals or businesses. Futhermore, to enhance the reliability and comprehensiveness of the data, the study incorporated additional data sources such as FGD with chief accountants and technology experts to gain a deeper understanding of the actual influencing factors. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data helps to verify the model more comprehensively, minimizing errors due to social desirability bias…’

Comment 3:

What are the potential implications of the lack of a clear legal framework for blockchain adoption in financial accounting in Vietnam? How can policymakers and regulatory bodies address this challenge to promote wider adoption?

Response:

Thanks for this comment! We have added the discussion of this comment into the revised paper, in the Implication section as follows:

‘….The lack of a clear legal framework for the application of blockchain technology in financial accounting in Vietnam is one of the biggest barriers hindering the digital transformation process in this field. In the absence of official regulations from regulatory agencies such as the Ministry of Finance or the Vietnam Association of Accountants and Auditors (VAA), many businesses are concerned about the legality of data recorded via blockchain. This raises concerns about risks in regulatory compliance, especially in the context of accounting, which requires transparency, accuracy and high compliance. The lack of a clear legal framework also makes accountants and business leaders more cautious, even though they see the potential of blockchain in increasing efficiency and reducing fraud in financial information processing. As a result, the intention to apply blockchain is easily negatively affected, leading to delays in technology deployment and loss of competitive advantage. In addition, the lack of synchronization between pioneering enterprises and those that are not ready to implement will lead to inadequacies in data connection and financial reporting across the industry.

To overcome this, regulatory agencies need to quickly develop and promulgate an official legal framework for blockchain in financial accounting. The first steps could be to test the application through a sandbox model, then standardize the process of recording, storing and processing blockchain data in accordance with accounting standards. At the same time, there should be clear technical standards to ensure the security, transparency and auditability of blockchain systems. Legal recognition of blockchain-based accounting data will be a great motivation for businesses to confidently deploy. In addition, there should be training programs and technical support for accountants and financial managers on blockchain applications, helping them improve their awareness and practical skills. Completing the legal framework is not only a foundation to ensure compliance but also a lever to promote innovation and deeper application of technology in the financial accounting industry in Vietnam. When the legal corridor is established synchronously, blockchain can become an important tool in modernizing the corporate accounting system and increasing national competitiveness in the digital economy….’

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English in the manuscript is generally clear and well-written, with few grammar errors or typos. However, there are some areas where the language could be further improved for clarity and precision:

• Complex sentences: Some sentences are overly long and complex, making them difficult to parse and understand. Consider breaking them down into shorter, simpler sentences to improve readability.

We have checked and corrected all complex sentences according to your suggestions.

• Jargon and technical terms: While the paper is written for an academic audience, it is important to ensure that jargon and technical terms are clearly defined and explained, especially for readers who may not be familiar with the specific concepts related to blockchain and accounting technology.

In the revised paper, we have reviewed and clarified the technical and specialized terms related to blockchain technology and accounting according to your suggestions.

• Vocabulary: There is potential to vary the vocabulary and avoid repetition of similar words and phrases. Using a thesaurus can help identify synonyms and enhance the overall flow of the text.

We have checked and vary the vocabulary and avoid repetition of similar words and phrases as suggested.

      (4) Sentence structure: Some sentences could benefit from a more varied structure to add variety and interest to the writing. Here are a few examples of areas where language improvements could be made:

(1)Originality paragraph: "Although there have been many studies on factors influencing the intention to adopt blockchain in corporate accounting, there are still some research gaps that need to be explored to better understand the motivations and barriers of this technology in the accounting context."

Suggestion: "While numerous studies have investigated the factors influencing the intention to adopt blockchain technology in corporate accounting, further research is needed to delve into the specific motivations and barriers that exist within the accounting context."

We have checked and replaced as suggestion.

(2)Theoretical Framework section: "The TPB suggests that the intention to perform a behavior is influenced by three main factors: attitude toward behavior, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control."

Suggestion: "According to the TPB, the intention to engage in a particular behavior is determined by three key factors: individual attitude, subjective social norms, and perceived behavioral control."

We have checked and replaced as suggestion.

 (3)Hypotheses Development section: "Effort expectancy refers to the ease with which individuals believe they can use a new technology."

Suggestion: "Effort expectancy refers to the degree of ease or difficulty individuals perceive when using a new technology."

We have checked and replaced as suggestion.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and the language is generally clear. By addressing these suggestions for improvement, the clarity and impact of the paper can be further enhanced.

Once more, thanks so much for your comments and suggestions for improvement! We have modified and corrected the paper as your comments and look forward to receiving approval from you.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research Topic and Innovativeness

 

Topic Relevance: This thesis focuses on the application of blockchain technology in the field of financial accounting within Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises and the influencing factors involved. It is a timely and forward-looking research topic. With the ongoing digital transformation, the application of blockchain in accounting has received growing attention. As an emerging economy in Southeast Asia, Vietnam’s manufacturing sector provides valuable insights into how blockchain technology is adopted under different economic contexts, enhancing our understanding of its global implementation.

 

Innovativeness: The thesis integrates the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) with the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to build a comprehensive theoretical framework for analyzing influencing factors. It also explores the mediating role of attitude within this framework. This dual-theoretical perspective is relatively rare in the research of blockchain applications in accounting and offers a novel theoretical lens to understand enterprise behavior toward technology adoption.

 

Research Design and Methodology

 

Theoretical Framework: The paper provides a clear introduction to the UTAUT and TPB theories and constructs a research model based on them, with clearly defined hypotheses on variable relationships. The theoretical foundation is well-articulated, and the model construction is sound, laying a solid groundwork for empirical analysis.

 

Data Collection and Sample Selection: Data were collected via a questionnaire survey involving 320 Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises, with 308 valid responses obtained. The sample size meets the basic requirements for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and adequately represents the situation in Vietnam’s manufacturing sector. However, the focus solely on manufacturing enterprises may limit the generalizability of the findings.

 

Measurement Instruments and Variable Operationalization: The thesis references relevant theories and prior studies to design detailed measurement items for each research variable (e.g., performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence). These items are scientifically grounded and practical, though further validation may be necessary to ensure their suitability in Vietnam’s specific context.

 

Data Analysis Methods: The study employs statistical methods such as Cronbach’s Alpha analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). These techniques effectively test the reliability, validity, and interrelationships among variables, and the overall analysis is rigorous.

 

Research Findings and Discussion

 

Results Presentation: The findings reveal that performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, and perceived cost significantly affect attitudes. Attitude, in turn, significantly influences the intention to adopt blockchain technology and acts as a partial mediator between several influencing factors and adoption intention. These results offer empirical support for understanding the mechanisms affecting blockchain adoption in accounting and are in line with some existing research.

 

Depth of Discussion: The thesis provides an in-depth discussion of the results, analyzing the mechanisms of each influencing factor in light of relevant theories and Vietnam’s specific context. For example, the study notes that trust in technology has no significant impact on attitude or intention, possibly due to the limited application of blockchain in accounting and the lack of a clear legal framework. Such discussions help deepen the understanding of the findings and offer new directions for future research.

 

Research Contributions and Limitations

 

Theoretical Contributions: The study extends the application of UTAUT and TPB in the domain of blockchain-based accounting, enriching empirical research in this field. It also highlights the importance of perceived cost in technology acceptance models, contributing to the refinement and development of related theories.

 

Practical Significance: The findings offer actionable insights for Vietnamese manufacturing firms aiming to implement blockchain technology in financial accounting. For example, enhancing awareness of blockchain’s benefits, improving ease of use, providing training, and optimizing cost structures can support strategic planning and promote digital transformation.

 

Limitations: The research is limited to manufacturing enterprises in Vietnam, and the narrow sample scope may restrict the generalizability of the conclusions. Moreover, the cross-sectional survey design cannot capture changes in organizational attitudes and behaviors over time. Future studies could expand the sample scope and adopt longitudinal designs to test the stability and generalizability of the findings.

 

Overall Evaluation

 

Overall, this thesis demonstrates strong performance in topic selection, theoretical framework construction, research methodology, and result analysis. It is innovative and provides both theoretical and practical value. The structure is clear, the logic is rigorous, the research process is detailed, and the results are reliable with in-depth discussion. Although there are some limitations, they do not detract from the overall quality of the study. The thesis offers a fresh perspective and empirical support for research on blockchain applications in accounting and serves as a valuable reference for both scholars and practitioners in the field.

 

Suggestions for Further Improvement

 

Although this thesis performs well in many aspects, there are still areas for improvement to enhance its depth, breadth, and generalizability:

 

Expand Sample Scope and Representativeness

 

Current Issue: The sample is limited to Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises, which may not reflect the diversity in other sectors (e.g., finance, trade, services) or among different enterprise types (e.g., SMEs, state-owned, or foreign-funded firms).

 

Suggestions:

 

Expand the sample to other industries to validate the generalizability of the findings.

 

Increase the sample size, especially the proportion of SMEs, to better reflect the diversity of Vietnam’s economic ecosystem.

 

Adopt a Longitudinal Research Design

 

Current Issue: The cross-sectional design only captures a snapshot in time, limiting insights into evolving attitudes and behaviors.

 

Suggestions:

 

Conduct longitudinal research to track changes in attitudes and usage behavior over time (e.g., one to two years).

 

Analyze the dynamic process of blockchain adoption and long-term influencing factors.

 

Further Validate Measurement Tools in the Local Context

 

Current Issue: Measurement items, though adapted from existing studies, lack comprehensive validation in the Vietnamese context.

 

Suggestions:

 

Conduct broader pilot testing involving different industries and enterprise sizes to assess reliability and validity.

 

Incorporate qualitative methods (e.g., in-depth interviews, focus groups) to refine measurement items and ensure contextual relevance.

 

Explore Factors Affecting Trust in Technology

 

Current Issue: Trust in technology was found to have no significant impact, yet the underlying reasons were not deeply explored.

 

Suggestions:

 

Analyze factors influencing trust, such as technical security, legal frameworks, and technology maturity.

 

Use qualitative methods (e.g., interviews) to understand specific trust-related barriers faced by enterprises.

 

Incorporate Additional Influencing Factors

 

Current Issue: While the model based on UTAUT and TPB is comprehensive, some relevant factors (e.g., perceived risk, organizational readiness, legal policy) are missing.

 

Suggestions:

 

Include variables such as perceived technological risk, change management capacity, and policy support in future research.

 

Integrate other theories (e.g., Diffusion of Innovations, TAM2) to further enrich the analytical model.

 

Reduce Bias from Self-Reported Data

 

Current Issue: Reliance on self-reported data from managers and accountants may lead to social desirability bias.

 

Suggestions:

 

Supplement with objective data (e.g., actual blockchain adoption rates, technology investment levels).

 

Use multiple data sources (e.g., internal reports, expert opinions) for triangulation to improve reliability.

 

Enhance Generalizability of Conclusions

 

Current Issue: Findings are specific to Vietnam’s manufacturing sector and may not be directly applicable elsewhere.

 

Suggestions:

 

Compare findings with studies from other countries or regions to identify Vietnam-specific versus general patterns.

 

Encourage replication studies in other countries to validate generalizability.

 

Further Explore the Mechanism of Attitudinal Mediation

 

Current Issue: While attitude is found to be a partial mediator, the underlying mechanism is not fully explained.

 

Suggestions:

 

Conduct path or multilevel analysis to examine how attitude mediates the relationship between influencing factors and intention.

 

Use qualitative data to uncover the internal decision-making processes of enterprises.

 

Enhance Practical Guidance

 

Current Issue: The managerial recommendations are somewhat broad and lack detailed implementation strategies.

 

Suggestions:

 

Provide more specific guidelines, such as designing user-friendly blockchain systems, organizing effective training programs, and optimizing cost structures.

 

Include case studies of successful enterprises to illustrate practical approaches to overcoming adoption barriers.

 

By implementing these improvements, the thesis can further enhance its academic value and provide more targeted and practical guidance to support the widespread application of blockchain technology in financial accounting.

Author Response

RESPONSE REPORT TO REVIEWER’ COMMENTS

The authors would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewer for detailed comments and suggestions. These are very valuable and precious comments, helping the authors to complete the article. The authors have absorbed and revised the entire article according to the comments of the reviewer. We have re-edited and revised the content in all sections to complete the article according to the comments. Below are our detailed explanations, improvements and revision (in red text) according to each point of the reviewer' comments. We have also reviewed and revised the entire article in terms of content, language and form to improve the quality of the article (Please see the revised manuscript for more details). The authors hope to receive the consideration and approval of the editor and reviewer.

Reviewer 2:

Overall, this thesis demonstrates strong performance in topic selection, theoretical framework construction, research methodology, and result analysis. It is innovative and provides both theoretical and practical value. The structure is clear, the logic is rigorous, the research process is detailed, and the results are reliable with in-depth discussion. Although there are some limitations, they do not detract from the overall quality of the study. The thesis offers a fresh perspective and empirical support for research on blockchain applications in accounting and serves as a valuable reference for both scholars and practitioners in the field.

Thanks so much for your valuable comments and suggetions!

Suggestions for Further Improvement

Although this thesis performs well in many aspects, there are still areas for improvement to enhance its depth, breadth, and generalizability:

• Expand Sample Scope and Representativeness

Current Issue: The sample is limited to Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises, which may not reflect the diversity in other sectors (e.g., finance, trade, services) or among different enterprise types (e.g., SMEs, state-owned, or foreign-funded firms).

Suggestions:

Expand the sample to other industries to validate the generalizability of the findings. Increase the sample size, especially the proportion of SMEs, to better reflect the diversity of Vietnam’s economic ecosystem.

Response:

Thank you for this very good comment! Since we have conducted a field survey and cannot repeat it in this study, in the revised paper, we have acknowledged this limitation and made suggestions for future research that could expand the sample size and research disciplines to increase the generalizability of the results as per your comment.

• Adopt a Longitudinal Research Design

Current Issue: The cross-sectional design only captures a snapshot in time, limiting insights into evolving attitudes and behaviors.

Suggestions: Conduct longitudinal research to track changes in attitudes and usage behavior over time (e.g., one to two years). Analyze the dynamic process of blockchain adoption and long-term influencing factors.

Response:

Thanks for this great comment. Since the study happened at one point in time, in the revised paper, we acknowledged this limitation and suggested that future research could conduct the study over time to analyze the dynamic process of blockchain adoption and long-term influencing factors. As follow in the revised paper

‘…Second, the study was conducted using a cross-sectional design at one point in time, thus not reflecting the changes in users’ behaviors, perceptions, and attitudes toward blockchain over time. Given the rapid technological change and the potential for adoption to progress in stages (from awareness to actual behavior), future studies should consider using a longitudinal study design to track blockchain adoption behavior in stages, from pre-implementation to post-use….’

• Further Validate Measurement Tools in the Local Context

Current Issue: Measurement items, though adapted from existing studies, lack comprehensive validation in the Vietnamese context.

Suggestions:  Conduct broader pilot testing involving different industries and enterprise sizes to assess reliability and validity.  Incorporate qualitative methods (e.g., in-depth interviews, focus groups) to refine measurement items and ensure contextual relevance.

Response:

Thanks for this comment. In fact, in our study, we have inherited the literature and performed FGD to validate constructs and measurement items. We have clarified this in the FGD section in section 3- Methodology of the revised paper according to your comments. As follow: 

‘….After identifying the theoretical factors, the study conducted a focus group discussion with experts in the fields of accounting, finance and blockchain technology to test the suitability of the variables in the real context, while ensuring that the survey questionnaire was designed to be practical, using easy-to-understand terminology and highly applicable in Vietnamese enterprises. The FGD participants included 8 experts including chief accountants, auditors, financial directors, blockchain technology experts and scholars specializing in accounting and finance. The FGD was conducted in November 2024 with the following process: Introducing the research objectives and related theoretical models, followed by asking experts to assess the suitability of the factors in the theoretical model with the reality of Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises. After that, the experts discussed the factors that could be added or adjusted. The research team took note of the comments and adjusted the survey questionnaire based on the feedback….’

• Explore Factors Affecting Trust in Technology

Current Issue: Trust in technology was found to have no significant impact, yet the underlying reasons were not deeply explored.

Suggestions: Analyze factors influencing trust, such as technical security, legal frameworks, and technology maturity. Use qualitative methods (e.g., interviews) to understand specific trust-related barriers faced by enterprises.

Response:

Thank you very much. We have added in the Discussions section of the revised paper the reasons Trust in technology was found to have no significant impact and suggested Analyze factors influencing trust in future studies. As follow:

‘…A notable point in the research results is that trust in technology does not have a significant relationship with attitude, and attitude does not play a mediating role in the relationship between trust in technology and intention to adopt blockchain in financial accounting. This means that the level of trust in blockchain technology of accountants does not significantly affect the way they evaluate blockchain, nor does it indirectly affect the intention to adopt this technology through attitude. One of the possible reasons for this result is that the awareness of blockchain in the field of financial accounting in Vietnam is still limited. Currently, most Vietnamese enterprises, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), do not have much practical experience with blockchain in accounting. Therefore, trust in technology does not have a solid enough practical basis to affect the attitude of accountants. This is consistent with the study by Schmitz and Leoni (2019), which shows that in markets where blockchain applications in accounting are not yet widespread, trust in technology is not a major determinant of technology adoption. Second, the above results can be explained by the fact that Blockchain in Financial Accounting is Not Popular in Vietnam. Unlike fields such as decentralized finance (DeFi) or supply chain, blockchain in financial accounting in Vietnam is still in its infancy. Most businesses have not yet implemented blockchain in practice to record accounting transactions, audit or prepare financial statements. Therefore, accountants may believe that blockchain is a trustworthy technology, but due to lack of practical experience, this trust does not translate into a positive attitude towards this technology. This is consistent with the study by Pimentel and Boulianne (2020), which highlighted that in markets where blockchain has not yet been implemented in accounting, trust in the technology is not strong enough to drive adoption. Another reason could be the lack of a clear legal framework for blockchain in accounting in Vietnam. Currently, Vietnamese accounting standards (VAS) provide specific guidance on how to apply blockchain in recording financial transactions or auditing. This lack of clarity may leave accountants without a legal basis to believe that blockchain is a suitable technology for financial accounting, leading to trust in the technology not having a significant impact on attitudes towards blockchain. The study by Wang et al. (2021) also highlighted that in countries where there are no clear regulations on blockchain in accounting, accountants’ attitudes are more influenced by policy uncertainty than trust in the technology….’

• Incorporate Additional Influencing Factors

Current Issue: While the model based on UTAUT and TPB is comprehensive, some relevant factors (e.g., perceived risk, organizational readiness, legal policy) are missing.

Suggestions: Include variables such as perceived technological risk, change management capacity, and policy support in future research.

Response:

In the discussion section, we have added about the variables that may be missed in the research model according to your suggestions. As follow:

 ‘…Although the research model has included many important factors, it may still miss some variables that have a significant impact on the intention to adopt blockchain in financial accounting. First, perceived risk is an important factor because blockchain is a new technology, which may raise security, legal and technical concerns. Second, the level of organizational readiness such as IT infrastructure, human resources capacity and support from leaders may determine the possibility of successful implementation. Third, the legal and policy framework is a key factor in the context of Vietnam, where there is a lack of clear regulations guiding the implementation of blockchain in accounting. The omission of these variables may lead to incomplete results and/or distort the influence of factors in the model. Future studies should incorporate the above factors to increase the reliability and generalizability of the model, and more fully reflect the barriers and conditions necessary for blockchain adoption in business practice….’

• Reduce Bias from Self-Reported Data

Current Issue: Reliance on self-reported data from managers and accountants may lead to social desirability bias.

Suggestions: Supplement with objective data (e.g., actual blockchain adoption rates, technology investment levels). Use multiple data sources (e.g., internal reports, expert opinions) for triangulation to improve reliability.

Response:

Thank you for your comment and suggestion! We have added this suggestion on the potential for social desirability bias in self-reported data and how to reduce this bias in the revised paper (section - Methodology), as follow:

‘…This study used a self-administered questionnaire; a common risk is social desirability bias, when respondents choose the “correct” answer according to social expectations rather than reflecting their actual thoughts or behaviors. In the context of studying blockchain adoption intentions in accounting, this is likely to happen because blockchain is seen as a modern, positive technology, which can make respondents rate it higher than it actually is to show off their or their organization's progress. To limit this problem, the study ensured anonymity and confidentiality of personal information, to create a sense of security when answering. In addition, designing the questions in a neutral, non-leading direction, incorporating reverse questions helps detect or reduce bias. In addition, the introduction of the survey clearly stated the commitment to research ethics, ensuring that the information is only for academic purposes and does not affect individuals or businesses. In addition, to enhance the reliability and comprehensiveness of the data, the study incorporated additional data sources such as discussion groups with chief accountants and technology experts to gain a deeper understanding of the actual influencing factors. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data helps to verify the model more comprehensively, minimizing errors due to social bias…’

• Enhance Generalizability of Conclusions

Current Issue: Findings are specific to Vietnam’s manufacturing sector and may not be directly applicable elsewhere.

Suggestions: Compare findings with studies from other countries or regions to identify Vietnam-specific versus general patterns. Encourage replication studies in other countries to validate generalizability.

Response:

Thanks to the reviewer, we have added your suggestion in the Discussion section, which discusses in detail how would the findings differ if the study were conducted in other industries or regions, specifically as follows:

 ‘…The above findings were conducted in the context of manufacturing industries in Vietnam. If the study were conducted in industries other than manufacturing or in regions other than Vietnam, the results may be different in terms of both the influencing factors and the level of impact of each factor on the intention to adopt blockchain in financial accounting. In highly digitized industries such as finance and banking, factors such as trust in technology, data security, and the ability to integrate new technology may play a more prominent role than the expectation of effort or cost of implementation. Meanwhile, in public service or education industries – where public budgets are often limited – the perception of cost and favorable conditions may become the main barriers. In particular, in industries with distributed accounting systems such as logistics or construction, blockchain may be highly appreciated for its ability to integrate and make data transparent, making the expectation of efficiency a dominant factor in adoption behavior. Regionally, in developed countries with strong technological foundations and clear policy support, trust in technology and social influence from accounting professionals or associations may play a larger role in driving adoption behavior. Meanwhile, in developing countries where technology investment and legal frameworks for blockchain are lacking, factors such as implementation costs, technical support, and internal training become top priorities. These differences suggest that theoretical models such as UTAUT or TPB need to be flexibly adjusted according to the industry context and applicable region. Blockchain implementation in financial accounting should not follow a “one-size-fits-all” model, but should be based on industry specificity, technological maturity, and regulatory environment…’

• Further Explore the Mechanism of Attitudinal Mediation

Current Issue: While attitude is found to be a partial mediator, the underlying mechanism is not fully explained.

Suggestions: Conduct path or multilevel analysis to examine how attitude mediates the relationship between influencing factors and intention.Use qualitative data to uncover the internal decision-making processes of enterprises.

Response:

Thanks for the comment. In the revised paper, we presented in more detail the results of a path analysis o examine how attitude mediates the relationship between influencing factors and intention. We added the Boostrap analysis as follows:

‘….In addition to SEM analysis, the study conducted Bootstrap analysis with 5,000 replicates to test the mediating role of attitude variables in the relationship between independent factors and intention to apply blockchain in financial accounting. The results showed that attitude had a partial and statistically significant mediating effect in most of the tested relationships (p < 0.05, confidence interval did not contain 0). Specifically, variables such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, favorable conditions, and cost perception... all indirectly affected intention through attitude. In which, the strongest indirect relationship was from performance expectancy → attitude → intention, followed by social influence and effort expectancy. This shows that behavioral attitude is an important psychological bridge, transmitting influence from perception to behavior of accepting new technology. In contrast, for trust in technology, the Bootstrap results showed that the indirect effect through attitude was not significant (p > 0.05), implying that attitude does not play a mediating role in this relationship. Overall, the results support the hypothesis from the TPB model that behavioral attitudes play an important mediating role, thereby clarifying the influence mechanism of cognitive factors on blockchain adoption behavior in financial accounting….’

• Enhance Practical Guidance

Current Issue: The managerial recommendations are somewhat broad and lack detailed implementation strategies.

Suggestions: Provide more specific guidelines, such as designing user-friendly blockchain systems, organizing effective training programs, and optimizing cost structures. Include case studies of successful enterprises to illustrate practical approaches to overcoming adoption barriers.

Response:

Thanks for the comment! We have added specific suggestions in the revised paper according to the comments (Implications section), as followsL

‘….Based on the research results, to promote the intention to apply blockchain in financial accounting, managers need to have specific strategies to reduce barriers, increase positive attitudes and facilitate technology implementation. Below are some detailed management implications:

Design a user-friendly blockchain system: Since effort expectancy is one of the factors that significantly affect attitudes and intentions to apply, technology providers and businesses need to focus on a simple, easy-to-use interface, smooth integration with current accounting software. The system should support bilingualism, intuitive user instructions and have process automation features suitable for Vietnamese accounting practices.

Organizing effective training programs for accounting personnel: Research results show that attitudes are strongly influenced by perceptions, in which lack of knowledge and skills is a major barrier. Therefore, businesses should cooperate with accounting associations and specialized training institutions to deploy short-term courses on blockchain, including applied theory and practice of accounting on the blockchain platform.

Optimizing the cost of deploying and maintaining technology: Perception of cost is a factor affecting both attitudes and intentions. Therefore, it is necessary to have a cost optimization strategy through applying the software-as-a-Service (BaaS) model, deploying in parts (modular), or linking with technology partners for technical support. Small and medium-sized enterprises can choose open source blockchain solutions, or rent hosting services instead of investing in their own infrastructure.

Leverage internal communications and positive social influence: Social influence plays an important role in shaping attitudes. Therefore, businesses should use change agents, organize internal workshops, or share successful examples from blockchain-applied units to create a positive perception ripple effect within the organization….’

By implementing these improvements, the thesis can further enhance its academic value and provide more targeted and practical guidance to support the widespread application of blockchain technology in financial accounting.

Once more, thanks so much for your comments and suggestions for improvement! We have modified and corrected the paper as your comments and look forward to receiving approval from you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The article integrates two theories, UTAUT and TPB, for modeling purposes, but there is a high degree of overlap between the two theories in terms of variables, which leads to increased model complexity and limited theoretical gain, and lacks sufficient explanation of the logic of the integration and its innovations. Although multiple mediating paths are constructed, there is a lack of clear logic regarding the positioning of the “trust” variable in the UTAUT and TPB frameworks and its theoretical linkages with other variables, which can easily lead to confusion in the causal chain.
Comment 2: The sample is not representative enough. The article uses a combination of stratified and convenience sampling methods, and although 308 samples were collected, it lacks a description of the distribution of the samples in terms of region, industry, or type of enterprise (e.g., state-owned vs. privately owned), which may affect the generalizability and robustness of the conclusions.
Lack of validation design for variable measurement; although the scale draws on existing literature, the validity of the measurement of variable fit in Vietnam's specific institutional and cultural context is not sufficiently validated, and there is no indication of whether or not localized revisions or translation back-translations are performed.
Comment 3: Incomplete reporting of structural equation modeling Although SEM path analysis was conducted to report the results, key information such as changes in model fit indicators (e.g., χ²/df, CFI, TLI, etc.) and correlations among latent variables were not sufficiently described to fully validate the model rationality.
The results of the trust variable were not consistent with the hypotheses and were not explained. In the study, the “trust” variable was not significant for both attitudes and intentions, but there was no in-depth discussion of this anomaly, nor was there any attempt to introduce alternative explanations (e.g., institutional trust or technological familiarity).
Comment 4: The study is not innovative enough. Although the article applies a dual-theory model, the overall framework is similar to that of previous literature, and lacks methodological innovations or the support of background variable extensions (e.g., institutional environment, digital maturity), which makes it difficult to highlight the uniqueness. The literature review lacks criticality. The current literature review is mostly descriptive and fails to propose clear research gaps from the perspectives of theoretical blind spots, variable omissions or methodological flaws, resulting in a lack of strong expression of research motivation.
Comment 5: The statement of practical implications is too generalized. The conclusions only talk about management implications in general terms, such as “attitudes should be improved” and “training should be strengthened”, and there is a lack of specific categorization recommendations based on the characteristics of different enterprises (e.g., size and industry), resulting in a low level of policy appropriateness. Research limitations lack substance. Although the article has a paragraph on research limitations, the content of the article is formal and does not address substantive issues such as sample bias, measurement error, modeling, etc., nor does it provide a clear path of recommendations for future research.

Author Response

RESPONSE REPORT TO REVIEWER COMMENTS

The authors would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewer for detailed comments and suggestions. These are very valuable and precious comments, helping the authors to complete the article. The authors have absorbed and revised the entire article according to the comments of the reviewer. We have re-edited and revised the content in all sections to complete the article according to the comments. Below are our detailed explanations, improvements and revision (in red text) according to each point of the reviewer' comments. We have also reviewed and revised the entire article in terms of content, language and form to improve the quality of the article (Please see the revised manuscript for more details). The authors hope to receive the consideration and approval of the editor and reviewer.

Reviewer 3:

Comment 1: The article integrates two theories, UTAUT and TPB, for modeling purposes, but there is a high degree of overlap between the two theories in terms of variables, which leads to increased model complexity and limited theoretical gain, and lacks sufficient explanation of the logic of the integration and its innovations. Although multiple mediating paths are constructed, there is a lack of clear logic regarding the positioning of the “trust” variable in the UTAUT and TPB frameworks and its theoretical linkages with other variables, which can easily lead to confusion in the causal chain.

Response to reviewer:

We would like to thank the reviewer for insightful comments on the theoretical structure of the paper, especially on the integration of the UTAUT and TPB models, as well as the treatment of the variable “trust in technology”. We would like to clarify the following points:

1. On the reasons for integrating UTAUT and TPB and how to overcome the overlap of variables

We acknowledge that there is some degree of overlap between the variables in the two models, especially between “attitude” in TPB and “performance expectancy” or “effort expectancy” in UTAUT, as they both reflect the subjective perception of technology. However, the purpose of integrating the two models is not to mechanically combine, but to:

• Add the concept of attitude from TPB – a factor that has been shown to be an important mediator between perception and behavior in many technological behavior studies (Ajzen, 1991). The original UTAUT did not include this variable, and its inclusion helps to expand the depth of behavioral psychology for the model.
• UTAUT is used as the main framework for cognitive factors (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions), while TPB is applied to explain the role of attitudes and mediating mechanisms, thereby clarifying the cause-effect chain in technology acceptance behavior.
• Although there may be interference, we tested the correlations between variables and ensured that there was no significant multicollinearity, and used SEM analysis to test the theoretical model with a clear structure.

2. On the theoretical position of the variable “trust in technology” (Trust)

We agree that the variable “trust” needs to be explained more clearly in terms of its theoretical role and causal relationship. In this study, trust in technology is introduced as an extended belief variable, which is not directly included in the original UTAUT or TPB, but has been shown by many extended studies (Gefen et al., 2003; Kim & Garrison, 2009) to influence both attitude and behavioral intention.

• Regarding its position in the model, trust is assumed to be an exogenous variable, affecting attitude (indirectly affecting intention) according to the extended TPB. We found that the empirical results do not support this hypothesis, and this is also analyzed in detail in the discussion section.
• We also consider trust as an additional factor to extend the explanatory power of the model, not located in the core of UTAUT or TPB.

3. Theoretical innovation

The integration of UTAUT and TPB in the study is not just “cumulative” but aims to clarify the psychological mediating role of attitudes, and to test the model in a specific field and context – the financial accounting industry in Vietnam, where blockchain is still a new technology. This combination has:

• Explored the indirect impact mechanism through attitudes – something that the original UTAUT did not clarify.
• Evaluated the appropriateness of the trust variable in the context of unclear legality and weak technological trust in Vietnam – providing suggestions for further studies.

We have noted your valuable comments and adjusted the revised version as follows:

• Clarified the logic of model integration in the theoretical framework.
• Added a theoretical diagram to illustrate the causal structure more clearly, especially the position of the “trust” variable.
• Emphasizes the theoretical extension and implications for applications in industries where high technology is not yet popular.

Comment 2: The sample is not representative enough. The article uses a combination of stratified and convenience sampling methods, and although 308 samples were collected, it lacks a description of the distribution of the samples in terms of region, industry, or type of enterprise (e.g., state-owned vs. privately owned), which may affect the generalizability and robustness of the conclusions. Lack of validation design for variable measurement; although the scale draws on existing literature, the validity of the measurement of variable fit in Vietnam's specific institutional and cultural context is not sufficiently validated, and there is no indication of whether or not localized revisions or translation back-translations are performed.

Response to reviewer:

We thank you very much for your very valuable comments regarding the representativeness of the sample and the validity of the scale in the Vietnamese cultural-institutional context.

• Regarding the sampling method, the study used a combination of stratification and convenience due to limited practical conditions. Although 308 valid samples were collected, we acknowledge that the lack of clear description of the sample distribution by geographical region, enterprise size or ownership type (private, state, FDI) is a shortcoming that may affect the ability to generalize the results. In the revised version, we have added a detailed description of the sample (Data collection section) as well as a clearer discussion of the limitations in the section "Research limitations on sample size", and at the same time proposed directions for expanding the study with random sampling methods in the future. Specifically, the addition is as follows:

 ‘…. With the aim of ensuring representativeness and diversity in terms of enterprise types, industries and geographical areas, the research sample was distributed as follows. In terms of size, the survey sample includes 76 small businesses (23.8%), 142 medium-sized businesses (44.4%) and 102 large businesses (31.8%). In terms of ownership, there are 144 domestic private businesses (45%), 98 foreign-invested businesses (FDI – 30.6%) and 78 state-owned or state-dominated businesses (24.4%). By production sector, the businesses are distributed as follows: food and beverage processing accounts for 27.5%, mechanics – electricity – electronics accounts for 22.5%, garment – ​​footwear accounts for 20%, construction materials – chemicals accounts for 16.3%, and other manufacturing industries account for 13.7%. In terms of geographical distribution, 122 enterprises came from the Northern region (38.1%), 68 from the Central region (21.3%), and 130 from the Southern region (40.6%). In addition, the respondents' positions in the enterprises were also diversified: including CEOs, CFOs, chief accountants, accountants, or senior managers. The distribution of the sample according to many characteristics as above is to increase the generalizability of the research results….’

• Regarding the scale, the observed variables are inherited from prestigious international works such as UTAUT, TPB, TAM, etc. However, we agree that it is necessary to clarify the process of adjusting to the Vietnamese context. In fact, the scale has been translated - back-translated and adjusted through expert opinions and group discussions with chief accountants of enterprises, but it has not been clearly presented in the manuscript. We will add a detailed description of the translation and semantic adjustment process, as well as emphasize that the study has only stopped at structural validation (CFA) and has not yet tested more deeply on stability or contextual equivalence. These points will be completed to enhance the reliability and academic quality of the study.

Comment 3: Incomplete reporting of structural equation modeling Although SEM path analysis was conducted to report the results, key information such as changes in model fit indicators (e.g., χ²/df, CFI, TLI, etc.) and correlations among latent variables were not sufficiently described to fully validate the model rationality.
The results of the trust variable were not consistent with the hypotheses and were not explained. In the study, the “trust” variable was not significant for both attitudes and intentions, but there was no in-depth discussion of this anomaly, nor was there any attempt to introduce alternative explanations (e.g., institutional trust or technological familiarity).

Response to reviewer:

Thank you for this very good comment. We have added in the revised paper a detailed discussion of the result that trust in technology does not have a significant impact on the intention to adopt blockchain, including the reasons for this result, including reasons specific to Vietnam. As folow:

‘…A notable point in the research results is that trust in technology does not have a significant relationship with attitude, and attitude does not play a mediating role in the relationship between trust in technology and intention to adopt blockchain in financial accounting. This means that the level of trust in blockchain technology of accountants does not significantly affect the way they evaluate blockchain, nor does it indirectly affect the intention to adopt this technology through attitude. One of the possible reasons for this result is that the awareness of blockchain in the field of financial accounting in Vietnam is still limited. Currently, most Vietnamese enterprises, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs), do not have much practical experience with blockchain in accounting. Therefore, trust in technology does not have a solid enough practical basis to affect the attitude of accountants. This is consistent with the study by Schmitz and Leoni (2019), which shows that in markets where blockchain applications in accounting are not yet widespread, trust in technology is not a major determinant of technology adoption. Second, the above results can be explained by the fact that blockchain in financial accounting is not popular in Vietnam. Unlike fields such as decentralized finance (DeFi) or supply chain, blockchain in financial accounting in Vietnam is still in its infancy. Most businesses have not yet implemented blockchain in practice to record accounting transactions, audit or prepare financial statements. Therefore, accountants may believe that blockchain is a trustworthy technology, but due to lack of practical experience, this trust does not translate into a positive attitude towards this technology. This is consistent with the study by Pimentel and Boulianne (2020), which highlighted that in markets where blockchain has not yet been implemented in accounting, trust in the technology is not strong enough to drive adoption. Another reason could be the lack of a clear legal framework for blockchain in accounting in Vietnam. Currently, Vietnamese accounting standards (VAS) provide specific guidance on how to apply blockchain in recording financial transactions or auditing. This lack of clarity may leave accountants without a legal basis to believe that blockchain is a suitable technology for financial accounting, leading to trust in the technology not having a significant impact on attitudes towards blockchain. The study by Wang et al. (2021) also highlighted that in countries where there are no clear regulations on blockchain in accounting, accountants’ attitudes are more influenced by policy uncertainty than trust in the technology….’

Comment 4: The study is not innovative enough. Although the article applies a dual-theory model, the overall framework is similar to that of previous literature, and lacks methodological innovations or the support of background variable extensions (e.g., institutional environment, digital maturity), which makes it difficult to highlight the uniqueness. The literature review lacks criticality. The current literature review is mostly descriptive and fails to propose clear research gaps from the perspectives of theoretical blind spots, variable omissions or methodological flaws, resulting in a lack of strong expression of research motivation.

Response to reviewer:

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their important comments on the innovation of the study as well as the overall quality of the literature review. We acknowledge the comments and would like to provide specific feedback as follows:

1. On innovation (Theoretical and Methodological Innovation)

We acknowledge that the UTAUT and TPB integrated model framework has been used in a number of previous studies. However, this study still has notable new contributions in the following aspects:

• Innovation in application context: Unlike previous studies that mainly applied the model in the field of information technology or banking, this study applies the integrated model to the specific context of financial accounting in the manufacturing industry in Vietnam - where blockchain is not yet popular, and accounting personnel often do not have a strong technology background. This expands the scope of application of UTAUT-TPB to a specialized and underexploited field.
• Innovation in the mediating mechanism: The study not only integrates TPB and UTAUT but also clarifies the mediating role of attitude, acting as a bridge between perception and behavior - something that many previous studies have ignored or not fully tested by SEM and bootstrap analysis as this study does.
• Suggestions for extension: We agree that the study may lack background factors such as digital maturity or institutional environment. However, this is also the intention to keep the model at a reasonable level for the current research scale. We will acknowledge and propose these background variables as the next development direction, especially in the context of Vietnam completing the legal corridor for blockchain.

2. Regarding the quality of the literature review and finding research gaps

We agree with the comment that the current review is still descriptive and does not clearly demonstrate academic criticism or systematic analysis of gaps. In the revised version, we added:

• A comparative review of previous studies on the application of UTAUT/TPB in the blockchain-accounting field to point out common limitations, such as the lack of intermediate analysis, and the lack of validation in emerging economies.
• Clarifying that many previous studies only focus on the technology or finance-banking fields, while the field of corporate financial accounting, especially in Vietnam - a context with an average level of digital transformation, lacking a full legal framework, is still a clear research gap.
• Adding a section assessing methodological limitations in previous studies (few studies use SEM + bootstrap to test the intermediate effect and the extended model), thereby showing the academic motivation more clearly.

We would like to accept all comments and will adjust the literature review to increase academic criticism, clarify theoretical and methodological gaps. At the same time, a discussion section will be added to emphasize the innovation in the theoretical integration, mediation analysis, and propose model extension with background variables in future research. We believe that these adjustments will help the research achieve higher academic depth and application value.

Comment 5: The statement of practical implications is too generalized. The conclusions only talk about management implications in general terms, such as “attitudes should be improved” and “training should be strengthened”, and there is a lack of specific categorization recommendations based on the characteristics of different enterprises (e.g., size and industry), resulting in a low level of policy appropriateness. Research limitations lack substance. Although the article has a paragraph on research limitations, the content of the article is formal and does not address substantive issues such as sample bias, measurement error, modeling, etc., nor does it provide a clear path of recommendations for future research.

Response to reviewer:

Thanks for the valuable comment! W have added more detailed management implications in the revised paper according to the comments, and also rewritten all the limitations of the study according to the comments, specifically as follows:

 ‘…Although the study has provided empirical results and made meaningful contributions to explaining the intention to apply blockchain in financial accounting in Vietnam, there are still some limitations.

First, the representativeness of the survey sample is not really high. Although 308 valid samples were collected from manufacturing enterprises, the combined sampling method of stratification and convenience can still lead to bias in sample distribution. Future studies should apply the probability sampling method, and expand the scope of the survey to other industries (such as services, finance, information technology) to test the stability of the model in many different contexts.

Second, the study was conducted using a cross-sectional design at one point in time, thus not reflecting the changes in users’ behaviors, perceptions, and attitudes toward blockchain over time. Given the rapid technological change and the potential for adoption to progress in stages (from awareness to actual behavior), future studies should consider using a longitudinal study design to track blockchain adoption behavior in stages, from pre-implementation to post-use. Third, the theoretical model integrating UTAUT and TPB, although meaningful, does not really demonstrate theoretical academic innovation. Future studies could extend the model by incorporating additional background variables such as digital maturity, institutional environment, corporate culture, or innovation readiness to increase comprehensiveness and better reflect the organizational and institutional context in developing countries.

Fourth, the study results show that the variable “trust in technology” does not have a significant effect, which calls for a review of the role and theoretical position of this variable. Future studies could test this variable as a moderator, or include it in the model in the form of interactions with other factors (e.g., trust × perceived risk) to better assess the impact under unclear legal and risk perception conditions.

Finally, the study data is entirely self-reported, which may be subject to social desirability bias. Therefore, future studies should incorporate more qualitative data (in-depth interviews, focus groups) or empirical data (level of blockchain implementation, feedback from accounting systems) to increase the validity and objectivity of the research model….’

Once more, thanks so much for your comments and suggestions for improvement! We have modified and corrected the paper as your comments and look forward to receiving approval from you.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the paper has been greatly improved, but there is still room for improvement. Specifically as follows:
Comment 1: The argumentation for innovation is still weak. Although “applying contextual innovation” and “attitude mediation mechanism” are the highlights, the article still relies on old models. The argument for “SEM + Bootstrap” as a methodological innovation is weak, as it has been widely used. The article lacks a systematic comparison of “well-differentiated” literature in the same field, and still does not establish sufficient evidence of “why this article is unique”.
Comment 2: Management insights and research limitations could be more refined. Although strategy recommendations for different types of firms and industry contexts are added, the content is still skewed towards “industry commonalities”. In addition, although the description of limitations is broad, some of the references, such as “extensible variables for future research”, lack a more operational description of the research path. It is not clear whether qualitative research validation mechanisms, behavioral observations, or longitudinal data will be used in future studies to avoid homogeneity bias.

Author Response

RESPONSE REPORT TO REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

The authors would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewer for comments and suggestions. These are very valuable and precious comments, helping the authors to complete the article. The authors have absorbed and revised the entire article according to the comments of the reviewer. Below are our detailed explanations, improvements and revision (in red text) according to each point of the reviewer' comments. We have also reviewed and revised the article in terms of content, language and form to improve the quality of the article (Please see the revised manuscript for more details). The authors hope to receive the consideration and approval of the editor and reviewer.

Reviewer:

Comment 1:

Comment 1: The argumentation for innovation is still weak. Although “applying contextual innovation” and “attitude mediation mechanism” are the highlights, the article still relies on old models. The argument for “SEM + Bootstrap” as a methodological innovation is weak, as it has been widely used. The article lacks a systematic comparison of “well-differentiated” literature in the same field, and still does not establish sufficient evidence of “why this article is unique”.

Response:

Thank you for your valuable comments to improve the paper. We agree that the argument for the research's innovation needs to be strengthened. In the revised version, we have made the following adjustments to address your comment. These additions are clearly shown in the introduction, literature review - theoretical framework and methods to highlight the difference of the research from existing works. Specifically:

• We added a paragraph in the introduction that clearly analyzes the novelty and uniqueness of the research compared to previous studies, as follows:

 ‘…In terms of novelty, compared to the above works, this study contributes in three distinct ways. First, the study integrates the UTAUT and TPB models to both exploit the technology awareness factor and analyze the behavioral mechanism through attitudes - something that few studies in the current accounting field have clarified. Second, attitudes are included as an intermediary variable and thoroughly tested using the Bootstrap method, showing a clearer explanatory value for behavioral intentions. Third, the study is conducted in the context of the manufacturing industry in Vietnam, where blockchain is not yet popular, the legal corridor is not yet complete, and accounting personnel are not yet deeply trained in technology - this is a unique context different from studies in developed countries. The application of the integrated model in this transitional environment not only tests the adaptability of international behavioral theories, but also provides an empirical basis for blockchain policies and deployment strategies suitable to the internal conditions of Vietnamese enterprises….’

• In the literature review section, we also added a paragraph clarifying that "innovation in context" is not simply applying the old model, but is a combination and adjustment suitable to the specific industry-country context, where the legal corridor is still unclear and the level of digital transformation is limited.

 ‘….This study integrates the UTAUT and TPB models to clarify the mediating role of attitude – an important but rarely examined behavioral psychology factor in blockchain accounting research. One of the important innovations of this study lies in the specific application context – manufacturing enterprises in Vietnam, where blockchain is still a new technology with no clear legal corridor and limited digital readiness. Most previous studies on blockchain adoption behavior mainly focus on developed countries with mature technological infrastructure and specific legal regulations (e.g., the US, Europe, Singapore), or in sectors such as banking and finance – where the need for automation and security is higher. Meanwhile, the financial accounting sector in Vietnamese manufacturing enterprises has its own characteristics such as limited technological resources, a cautious mentality towards innovation and high pressure to comply with regulations, requiring an appropriate adjustment approach. The application of the combined theoretical framework (UTAUT and TPB) in this context not only shows the scalability of traditional behavioral models, but also contributes to creating a new perspective on the barriers and motivations of local characteristics in the process of digital transformation of the accounting sector. This is the “contextual innovation” contribution that this study aims to make….’

• In the Data analysis section (Part 4), we also added an argument to clarify that the use of SEM combined with bootstrap is not a technical innovation, but a solution to increase reliability and evaluate indirect mechanisms, especially valuable when the model has psychological mediators such as TPB.

 ‘…In addition to using the SEM model, the study also conducted Bootstrap analysis to check the reliability of the analysis results, while emphasizing the technical innovation aspect, focusing on the methodological suitability for the research objectives. SEM allows simultaneous testing of multiple relationships between latent variables, which is very suitable for the theoretical integration model of UTAUT and TPB with multivariate structure and the participation of mediating variables. However, when analyzing indirect effects through attitude variables, the use of Bootstrap becomes especially important because this method does not depend on normal distribution and can provide accurate confidence intervals for indirect estimates. In the context of studying technology acceptance behavior in a developing country like Vietnam – where psychological factors such as attitudes play an important but easily overlooked role – the combination of SEM and Bootstrap helps ensure higher reliability in identifying the mediating mechanism and better understanding the causal relationships in the theoretical model. Therefore, this approach is not only suitable for the goal of hypothesis testing but also contributes to improving the empirical quality and explanatory value of the study….’

Comment 2: Management insights and research limitations could be more refined. Although strategy recommendations for different types of firms and industry contexts are added, the content is still skewed towards “industry commonalities”. In addition, although the description of limitations is broad, some of the references, such as “extensible variables for future research”, lack a more operational description of the research path. It is not clear whether qualitative research validation mechanisms, behavioral observations, or longitudinal data will be used in future studies to avoid homogeneity bias.How would the findings differ if the study were conducted in other industries or regions? Would the identified factors and their relative importance remain the same or vary significantly?

Response:

We would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful and valuable comments. We agree that the managerial implications and research limitations need to be further clarified, both in terms of theoretical depth and feasibility in future directions. In response to this comment, we have made the following adjustments:

1. Clarify the difference between industry-specific and enterprise-specific implications, avoiding generalizations. We added specific recommendations for grouping by size, industry, and technology readiness to increase feasibility in practical implementation.

‘…For small businesses, the focus should be on Blockchain-as-a-Service solutions and practical training packages. Conversely, large enterprises should be encouraged to build internally integrated blockchain systems with internal audit processes. The manufacturing industry should focus on traceability and cost control, while the financial services industry should prioritize authenticity, security, and transparent audit trails…’

2. Added the expanding the research scope by clearly classifying the extension directions into three specific groups: (i) qualitative validation; (ii) longitudinal study.in the limitations part, as follow:

‘…The study was conducted using a cross-sectional design at one point in time, thus not reflecting the changes in users’ behaviors, perceptions, and attitudes toward blockchain over time. Given the rapid technological change and the potential for adoption to progress in stages (from awareness to actual behavior), prospective studies can be conducted in a longitudinal manner to track changes in blockchain adoption behavior in different stages: before – during – after implementation. Qualitative designs such as in-depth interviews with chief accountants or technology experts can also be applied to explore intrinsic motivations and barriers that have not been reflected in quantitative surveys. In addition, behavioral observation can be combined with accounting blockchain system access data to compare with self-reported data and check for consistency….’

3. Added a discussion of the potential for differentiating results if the study were conducted in a different industry or region, emphasizing that factors such as social influence, cost perceptions, and favorable conditions may vary by industry, organizational culture, or level of institutional development. Specifically, in Discussion part, as follow:

‘…The above findings were conducted in the context of manufacturing industries in Vietnam. If the study were conducted in industries other than manufacturing or in regions other than Vietnam, the results may be different in terms of both the influencing factors and the level of impact of each factor on the intention to adopt blockchain in financial accounting. In highly digitized industries such as finance and banking, factors such as trust in technology, data security, and the ability to integrate new technology may play a more prominent role than the expectation of effort or cost of implementation. Meanwhile, in public service or education industries – where public budgets are often limited – the perception of cost and favorable conditions may become the main barriers. In particular, in industries with distributed accounting systems such as logistics or construction, blockchain may be highly appreciated for its ability to integrate and make data transparent, making the expectation of efficiency a dominant factor in adoption behavior. Regionally, in developed countries with strong technological foundations and clear policy support, trust in technology and social influence from accounting professionals or associations may play a larger role in driving adoption behavior. Meanwhile, in developing countries where technology investment and legal frameworks for blockchain are lacking costs, factors such as implementation, technical support, and internal training become top priorities. These differences suggest that theoretical models such as UTAUT or TPB need to be flexibly adjusted according to the industry context and applicable region. Blockchain implementation in financial accounting should not follow a “one-size-fits-all” model, but should be based on industry specificity, technological maturity, and regulatory environment…’

Once more, thanks so much for your comments and suggestions for improvement! We have modified and corrected the paper as your comments and look forward to receiving approval from you.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the paper has been greatly improved and is acceptable.