SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sayıştay Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 37 Sayı: 141

Bridging the Accountability Gap Through Smart Contract Driven Carbon Offsetting and Digital Asset Recognition in the Metaverse

Metaverse’de Akıllı Sözleşme Tabanlı Karbon Dengeleme ve Dijital Varlık Tanıma Yöntemleriyle Hesap Verilebilirlik Açığını Kapatmak

Emin Gitmez(İNÖNÜ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6678-2506
Pages
285–314
Publication Date
2026-07-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Furthermore, this study advocates for a shift toward “hard law” requirements through mandatory emission licensing, targeted fiscal instruments, such as deterrent taxes on energy-intensive PoW protocols and legally guaranteed cross-platform interoperability to prevent digital lock-in and regulatory arbitrage.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The rapid evolution of the metaverse presents a profound normative dilemma regarding its ecological legitimacy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The framework integrates blockchain-based “green oracles” and smart contracts to facilitate real-time, tamper-proof carbon tracking and automated offsetting.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, this study advocates for a shift toward “hard law” requirements through mandatory emission licensing, targeted fiscal instruments, such as deterrent taxes on energy-intensive PoW protocols and legally guaranteed cross-platform interoperability to prevent digital lock-in and regulatory arbitrage.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:metaverse · blokzincir · karbon yönetimi

Abstract

The rapid evolution of the metaverse presents a profound normative dilemma regarding its ecological legitimacy. This study addresses the “accountability gap” inherent in decentralized ecosystems, where the fragmented identity of the polluter complicates the enforcement of the “polluter pays” principle and the state's constitutional obligation to protect the environment. To mitigate these challenges, this study proposes an original net emission balance model E_{net} as a conceptual and regulatory tool to quantify the net climate impact of metaverse operations. The framework integrates blockchain-based “green oracles” and smart contracts to facilitate real-time, tamper-proof carbon tracking and automated offsetting. At the core of these solutions is recognizing tokenized carbon credits as property-law-based digital assets, aligning environmental compliance with secure digital ownership. Furthermore, this study advocates for a shift toward “hard law” requirements through mandatory emission licensing, targeted fiscal instruments, such as deterrent taxes on energy-intensive PoW protocols and legally guaranteed cross-platform interoperability to prevent digital lock-in and regulatory arbitrage.

Özet

Metaverse'ün hızlı gelişimi, ekolojik meşruiyetine ilişkin derin bir normatif ikilem ortaya çıkarmaktadır. Bu çalışma, kirletenin parçalı kimliğinin “kirleten öder” ilkesinin ve devletin çevreyi korumaya yönelik anayasal yükümlülüğünün uygulanmasını güçleştirdiği merkeziyetsiz ekosistemlerdeki “hesap verebilirlik boşluğu” sorununu ele almaktadır. Bu zorlukların giderilmesi amacıyla çalışma, metaverse faaliyetlerinin net iklim etkisini ölçmeye yönelik kavramsal ve düzenleyici bir araç olarak özgün bir net emisyon dengesi modeli E_{net} önermektedir. Önerilen çerçeve, gerçek zamanlı, değiştirilemez karbon takibini ve otomatik denkleştirmeyi sağlamak amacıyla blokzincir tabanlı “yeşil oracle”ları ve akıllı sözleşmeleri bütünleştirmektedir. Bu çözümlerin merkezinde, tokenleştirilmiş karbon kredilerinin mülkiyet hukukuna dayalı dijital varlıklar olarak tanınması yer almakta; böylece çevresel uyumluluk güvenli dijital mülkiyet ile uyumlu hâle getirilmektedir. Ayrıca çalışma, zorunlu emisyon lisanslaması, enerji yoğun iş ispatı protokollerine yönelik caydırıcı vergiler gibi hedefe yönelik mali araçlar ve dijital kilitlenme ile düzenleyici arbitrajı önlemek amacıyla hukuken güvence altına alınmış platformlar arası birlikte çalışabilirlik yoluyla “katı hukuk” temelli gerekliliklere geçişi savunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Gitmez, E. (2026). Bridging the Accountability Gap Through Smart Contract Driven Carbon Offsetting and Digital Asset Recognition in the Metaverse. Sayıştay Dergisi, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 141, 285–314. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1967791

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (61)

  1. Addy, W., Ofodile, O., Adeoye, O., Oyewole, A., Okoye, C., Odeyemi, O., & Ololade, Y. (2024). Data-driven sustainability: How fintech innovations are supporting green finance. Engineering Science & Technology Journal, 5(3), 760-773. https://doi.org/10.51594/ estj.v5i3.871
  2. Al-Kfairy, M. (2025). Greening the Virtual: An Interdisciplinary Narrative Review on the Environmental Sustainability of the Metaverse Sustainability, 17(16). https://doi. org/10.3390/su17167269
  3. Almher, M., Thiruchelvam, S., Isa, A., & Tawfeeq, O. (2025). Blockchain-enabled carbon tracking in the oil industry: A simulation-based study supporting ESG integration. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN), 13(3), 587-596. https://doi. org/10.21533/pen.v13.i3.574
  4. Alotaibi, E., Khallaf, A., Abdallah, A., Zoubi, T., & Alnesafi, A. (2024). Blockchain-driven carbon accountability in supply chains. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su162410872
  5. Alzoubi, Y., & Mishra, A. (2023). Green blockchain: A move towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 430(2023), 1-13.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139541
  6. Baklaga, L. (2024). Synergizing AI and Blockchain: Innovations in decentralized carbon markets for emission reduction through intelligent carbon credit trading. Journal of Computer Science and Technology Studies, 111-120.
  7. Zafir Bahçekapılı, C. Z. (2025). AB sınırda karbon düzenleme mekanizmasının Türkiye’nin karbon emisyonu yüksek sektörlerindeki potansiyel maliyetlerinin değerlendirilmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 47(2), 360-380. https://doi. org/10.14780/muiibd.1570321.
  8. Bozdoğanoğlu, B. (2023). Metaverse’de vergilendirme sorunları: Sanal dijital varlık kavramı ve Hindistan vergi sistemi çerçevesinde değerlendirme. Maliye Dergisi, 184, 197–224.
  9. Cadet, E., Babatunde, L., Ajayi, J., Erigh, E., Obuse, E., Essien, I., & Ayanbode, N. (2024). Developing scalable compliance architectures for cross-industry regulatory alignment. International Journal of Scientific Research in Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(2), 494–524. https://doi.org/10.32628/ijsrssh242556
  10. Çetin, M. (2025). Gönüllü karbon piyasalarında blokzincir uygulamaları ve sermaye piyasası hukuku çerçevesinde karbon kredisi NFT’leri. İnönü Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(2), 613-628. https://doi.org/10.21492/inuhfd.1790037
  11. Chuter, R., Brewster, F., & Tanderup, K. (2025). Estimating the carbon footprint of an international radiation oncology conference and modelling reduction strategies. Radiotherapy and Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2025.110956
  12. Constitution of the Republic of Türkiye. (1982). T.R. Official Gazette, (17844), 1-39. https:// www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.2709.pdf
  13. Çolak, Y. & Sandalcılar, A. R. (2019). Türkiye’de sanal para değerinin belirleyicileri: Bitcoinüzerine bir uygulama. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5(10),205-232.
  14. Damayanti, T., Aslanoğlu, S., Doğan, U (2024). Carbon Market: Recent and Future Research,Journal of Business Academy, 5 (1): 32-51.
  15. De Giovanni, P. (2023). Sustainability of the Metaverse: A transition to Industry 5.0. Sustainability, 15(7).
  16. Dinçer, İ., Arcaklıoğlu, P. D. E., & Ezan, M. A. (2022) Enerjide yapay zekânın rolü raporu, Türkiye Bilimler Akademisi, 36.
  17. Dowie, I. (2017). Legal, ethical and professional aspects of duty of care for nurses. Nursing Standard, 32(16–19), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.2017.e10959
  18. Esposito, M., Halkias, D., Diaz, J., & Tse, T. (2025). Environmental and climate impacts of the Metaverse. Thunderbird International Business Review, 1-18. https://doi. org/10.1002/tie.70025
  19. Fornasari, T., & Traversi, M. (2024). The Impact of the CSRD and the ESRS on non-financial disclosure. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, 1, 117–133. https://doi. org/10.4468/2024.1.07fornasari.traversi
  20. Gitmez, E. (2025). Kötü amaçlı akıllı sözleşmelerin hukuki açıdan değerlendirilmesi. Bilişim Hukuku Dergisi, 7(1), 222-264. https://doi.org/10.55009/ bilisimhukukudergisi.1670662
  21. Hong, Z., & Xiao, K. (2024). Digital economy structuring for sustainable development: the role of blockchain and artificial intelligence in improving supply chain and reducing negative environmental impacts. Scientific Reports, 14, 1-12. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-024-53760-3
  22. Jäckle, S. (2019). WE have to change! The carbon footprint of ECPR general conferences and ways to reduce it. European Political Science, 18, 630 – 650.
  23. Karim, S., Naeem, M., Tiwari, A., & Ashraf, S. (2023). Examining the avenues of sustainability in resources and digital blockchains backed currencies: evidence from energy metals and cryptocurrencies. Annals of Operations Research, 1 – 18. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10479-023-05365-8
  24. Kim, S., & Huh, J. (2020). Blockchain of carbon trading for UN Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12104021
  25. Kirui, T., Cheptonui, F., Opetsi, G., Matheka, J., & Gbadrive, S. (2024). Blockchain and digital technologies for Supply Chain Carbon Transparency: A systematic review and future research directions. International Journal of Scientific Research and Modern Technology, 3(6), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.38124/ijsrmt.v3i6.956
  26. Köse, H. Ö., & Polat, N. (2022). Dijital dönüşüm ve denetimin geleceğine etkisi, Sayıştay Dergisi, 32(123), 9-41. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1068328
  27. Kurt, G. & Alsu, E. (2024). Bitcoin üretiminin karbon emisyonu üzerindeki etkisi: Panel veri analizi.Pamukkale Üniversitesi İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(1), 199-221. https:// doi.org/10.47097/piar.1486854
  28. Kuyper, J., Schroeder, H., & Linnér, B.-O. (2018). The Evolution of the UNFCCC. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43(1), 343–368. https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-environ-102017-030119
  29. Lavayssière, X. (2025). Legal structures of tokenised assets. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.88
  30. Li, W., Wang, L., & Li, Y. (2020). A blockchain-based emissions trading system for the road transport sector: policy design and evaluation. Climate Policy, 21, 337 – 352.
  31. Liu, F., Pei, Q., Chen, S., Yuan, Y., Wang, L., & Muhlhauser, M. (2023). When the Metaverse meets carbon neutrality: Ongoing efforts and directions, 14(8), 1-24. https://doi. org/10.48550/arxiv.2301.10235
  32. Liu, Z., Sun, T., Yu, Y., Ke, P., Deng, Z., Lu, C., Huo, D., & Ding, X. (2022). Real-time carbon emission accounting technology toward carbon neutrality. Engineering, 14 (2022) 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2021.12.019
  33. Magaletti, N., Tognon, C., Di Molfetta, M., Zerega, A., Notarnicola, V., Zini, E., & Leogrande, A. (2025). Integrating ESG with Digital Twins and the Metaverse: A Data-Driven Framework for Smart Building Sustainability. Systems, 13(12), 1083. https://doi. org/10.3390/systems13121083
  34. Mulligan, C., Morsfield, S., & Cheikosman, E. (2023). Blockchain for sustainability: A systematic literature review for policy impact. Telecommunications Policy, 48(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2023.102676
  35. Nleya, S., & Velempini, M. (2024). Industrial Metaverse: A Comprehensive Review, Environmental Impact, and Challenges. Applied Sciences, 14(13), 5736, 1-30.
  36. Ojadi, J., Owulade, O., Odionu, C., & Onukwulu, E. (2025). Blockchain and IoT for Transparent Carbon Tracking and Emission Reduction in Global Supply Chains. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 12(2): 78- 118. https://doi.org/10.32628/ijsrset25122110
  37. Özdemir Uçgun, G. (2024). Examining the Effects of Metaverse Tourism on Environmental Sustainability. JOEEP: Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 9(1), 303-310.
  38. Patro, P., Jayaraman, R., Acquaye, A., Salah, K., & Musamih, A. (2025). Blockchain-based solution to enhance carbon footprint traceability, accounting, and offsetting in the passenger aviation industry. International Journal of Production Research, 63, 8235 – 8268.
  39. Pellegrino, A., Wang, R., & Stasi, A. (2023). Exploring the intersection of sustainable consumption and the Metaverse: A review of current literature and future research directions. Heliyon, 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19190
  40. Periyasamy, A., Singh, A., & Ravindra, K. (2022). Carbon emissions from virtual and physical modes of conference and prospects for carbon neutrality: An analysis from India. Air, Soil and Water Research, 15.
  41. Poulle, J.-B., Kannan, A., Spitz, N., Kahn, S., & Sotiropoulou, A. (2024). Corporate sustainability reporting directive. Pp. 648–653. Edward Elgar. https://doi. org/10.4337/9781035301959.00096
  42. Prastyanti, R. A., & Sharma, R. (2024). Establishing consumer trust through Data Protection Law as a competitive advantage in Indonesia and India. Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System, 4(2), 354–390.
  43. Rani, P., Sharma, P., & Gupta, I. (2024). Toward a greener future: A survey on sustainable blockchain applications and impact. Journal of Environmental Management, 354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120273
  44. Rathnayake, B., Gunathilake, L., Edirisinghe, R., & Perera, S. (2025). EcoConstruct: a blockchain-based system for carbon trading in construction projects. Construction Innovation, 214-217. https://doi.org/10.1108/ci-08-2024-0224
  45. Rietig, K. (2019). Leveraging the power of learning to overcome negotiation deadlocks in global climate governance and low carbon transitions. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(3), 228–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2019.1632698
  46. Rodrigo, M., Perera, S., Senaratne, S., & Jin, X. (2020). Potential application of Blockchain technology for embodied carbon estimating in Construction supply chains. Buildings, 10(8), 140 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings10080140
  47. Sadawi, A., Madani, B., Saboor, S., Ndiaye, M., & Abu-Lebdeh, G. (2021). A comprehensive hierarchical blockchain system for carbon emission trading utilizing blockchain of things and smart contract. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121124
  48. Savcı, M., & Yıldırım, K. (2024). İklim değişikliği ve çevresel maliyetler: kirleten öder ilkesi çerçevesinde bir değerlendirme. Fiscaoeconomia, 8(2), 862-886. https://doi. org/10.25295/fsecon.1438142
  49. Seidel, A., May, N., Guenther, E., & Ellinger, F. (2021). Scenario-based analysis of the carbon mitigation potential of 6G-enabled 3D videoconferencing in 2030. Telematics and Informatics, 64, 101686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2021.101686
  50. Stern, N., & Stiglitz, J. (2017). Report of the high-level commission on carbon prices. 1–61. https://doi.org/10.7916/d8-w2nc-4103
  51. Stokkink, Q., & Pouwelse, J. (2023). A local-first approach for green smart contracts. Distributed Ledger Technology: Research and Practise., 3, 13. https://doi. org/10.1145/3607196
  52. Tao, Y., Steckel, D., Klemeš, J., & You, F. (2021). Trend towards virtual and hybrid conferences may be an effective climate change mitigation strategy. Nature Communications, 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27251-2
  53. Traub, J., Morillas, C., Gil, R., Álvarez, S., & Martínez, S. (2025). Evaluating corporate carbon emissions reporting: assessing transparency and completeness with the Carbon Integrity Index. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17177628
  54. Tuğaç, Ç. (2023). Birleşmiş Milletler Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçlarının Gerçekleştirilmesinde Yapay Zeka Uygulamalarının Rolü. Sayıştay Dergisi, 128, 73-99. https://doi. org/10.52836/sayistay.1245051
  55. Turillazzi, A., Taddeo, M., Floridi, L., & Casolari, F. (2023). The digital services act: an analysis of its ethical, legal, and social implications. Law, Innovation and Technology, 15(1), 83–106.
  56. Van Thienen, P., Tsiami, L., Torello, M., & Savić, D. (2024). The potential of virtual reality meetings in international research projects for greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Technological Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1108/techs-05-2024-0051
  57. Viola, R., Irazola, M., Ju’arez, J., Nguyen, M., Zoubarev, A., Futasz, A., Bassbouss, L., Abdelnabi, A., & Hidalgo, J. (2025). Energy consumption assessment of a Virtual Reality Remote Rendering application over 5G networks. ArXiv, abs/2510.25357.
  58. Vladucu, M., Wu, H., Medina, J., Salehin, K., Dong, Z., & Rojas-Cessa, R. (2024). Blockchain on sustainable environmental measures: A review. Blockchains, 2(3), 334-365. https:// doi.org/10.3390/blockchains2030016
  59. Sapmaz Veral, E. (2022). Yeşil yıkama ile mücadele: Avrupa Birliği’nde yeşil iddiaların doğrulanması girişimi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 33(124), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.52836/ sayistay.1110591
  60. Watini, S., Davies, G., & Andersen, N. (2024). Cybersecurity in learning systems: Data protection and privacy in educational information systems and digital learning environments. International Transactions on Education Technology (ITEE), 3(1), 26– 35. https://doi.org/10.33050/itee.v3i1.665
  61. Zhang, X. (2025). Design and implementation of energy efficiency audit, carbon footprint tracking and sustainable development path planning system for green economy enterprises based on blockchain technology. 2025 3rd Cognitive Models and Artificial Intelligence Conference (AICCONF), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ aicconf64766.2025.11064234