DOI:https://doi.org/10.65613/741244
Yuxi ZHU
School of Commerce, Logistics, Qingdao University of Technology (Linyi)Shandong, China, 276038
19709806065@163.com
Abstract: The difficulties in engineering audit data verification lie in the evidence gap among on-site facts, contract rules, measurement and payment, and responsibility attribution. Blockchain and smart contracts provide new governance interfaces for this gap, but existing research is scattered in adjacent fields such as construction contract management and Audit 4.0, and has not yet formed a comprehensive explanation for engineering audit. Based on the PRISMA approach, this paper searches and screens relevant literature, combines the evidence mapping method, and reconstructs the knowledge structure of this field around “input of facts – translation of rules – execution of contracts – anchoring of evidence – audit feedback”. The study shows that the role of smart contracts in engineering audit is not to replace audit judgments, but to embed verifiable items in the project process, converting engineering quantities into traceable audit events. The literature also reveals that the real bottleneck does not lie in the chain-based evidence storage, but in whether the facts can be trusted to enter the contract, whether the contract rules can accommodate the engineering context, and whether the contract execution results can be recognized by the system. Based on this, this paper proposes a hierarchical mechanism framework and future research agenda for engineering audit data verification, emphasizing trusted oracles, BIM-IoT-chain integration, and privacy protection verification as the main lines of subsequent research.
Keywords: Smart Contracts; Engineering Audit; Blockchain; BIM; Oracle
I. Introduction
The engineering audit does not deal with isolated accounts, but rather with an evidence network composed of engineering quantities, progress, quality, changes, vouchers, materials, payments and settlements. Traditional verification relies on post-event documents, manual sampling, cross-departmental inquiries and supplementary explanations from project participants, often starting to reconstruct the evidence chain only after the event has occurred. This often leads to problems such as data lag, version drift, fragmented documents and ambiguous responsibility boundaries. The construction project has a long duration, involves multiple participants, and has complex contract levels. The on-site situation keeps changing. Data verification has gone beyond the scope of technical verification and encompasses the recording of project facts, triggering of contract terms, presentation of payment conditions, and determination of responsible entities. Existing reviews of construction contract management have shown that blockchain and smart contracts can improve contract transparency, payment execution, dispute prevention and performance tracking [1-2]; however, these studies mostly focus on project management efficiency and have not placed “how auditable evidence is generated” at the center.
The literature on audit information systems provides another explanatory path. Blockchain accounting and assurance research considers a real-time, transparent and verifiable data environment as an important condition for the digitalization of auditing, while smart contract research further discusses the rule-based, automated and near-real-time execution of auditing procedures [3-4]. The uniqueness of engineering audit lies in its being a composite fact composed of on-site conditions, contract terms, engineering measurement, quality acceptance, material circulation and payment nodes. BIM, IoT, ERP, scanning modeling, digital signatures and supply chain traceability systems can convert these facts into structured data, while trusted oracles determine whether these data can enter the contract in a traceable manner. The research on smart construction objects as blockchain oracles, as well as the review of oracle credibility, actually have touched upon the most sensitive interface of engineering audit: before real facts enter the code rules, they must first obtain proof of source, time point, subject and integrity [5-6].
This paper raises four questions. How do existing studies define the functional boundary of smart contracts in the data verification of engineering audit? Which construction project data objects are most suitable for contract-based verification? How to connect the immutability of the chain, the authenticity of the off-chain, the automatic execution of the contract and the professional judgment of auditing? What gaps are left in evidence strength, scenario verification and governance mechanisms in existing research? The contribution of this paper lies in once again proving that blockchain is “useful”, and incorporating smart contracts into the discussion of the evidence infrastructure of engineering audit, revealing its institutional meaning in fact admission, rule execution, responsibility tracking and auditing feedback.
II. Review Methodology
This article adopts a combined approach of systematic review and evidence mapping. The PRISMA 2020 guidelines and the earlier PRISMA statement provide procedural constraints for the search, screening, and inclusion processes [7-8]; evidence mapping is used to handle the scattered state of this field across construction management, information systems, supply chain governance, and auditing techniques. During coding, this article inquires about the specific location of each study within the engineering audit evidence chain. Table 1 summarizes the search strategy and screening criteria.
Table 1. Search Strategy and Screening Criteria
| Item | Specification | Rationale |
| Databases | WoS, Scopus, IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, ASCE Library, Taylor & Francis, Crossref/OpenAlex | Cover construction management, information systems, auditing, and blockchain engineering |
| Core keywords | smart contract; blockchain; construction audit; engineering audit; data verification; BIM; IoT; oracle; continuous auditing | Capture both construction-side and audit-side literature |
| Inclusion | Peer-reviewed journal papers, high-quality conference papers, systematic reviews, conceptual frameworks, prototype or case studies | Ensure theoretical and technical relevance |
| Exclusion | Pure cryptocurrency papers, non-technical commentaries, papers without audit/data verification relevance, duplicate preprints | Avoid thematic dilution |
| Coding dimensions | Domain, data source, contract function, verification mechanism, evidence type, validation method, limitation | Enable evidence mapping and synthesis |
The verification of engineering audit data has not yet formed a stable set of key terms. The related research is divided into two parts: one focuses on the digital governance of construction projects, another on blockchain audit guarantees, and a third part delves into supply chain, BIM and smart contract security research. Based on this, this paper adopts a cross-search strategy and follows the process shown in Figure 1 to screen the literature.
Figure 1. PRISMA-Based Literature Screening Process
The included literature was then re-coded according to the coding framework in Table 2, and transformed into comparable evidence chain units.
Table 2. Coding Framework for the Systematic Review
| Code | Coding dimension | Typical values | Audit relevance |
| C1 | Application domain | Contract, payment, BIM provenance, supply chain, ESG assurance, public audit | Defines where verification occurs |
| C2 | Data source | BIM, scan-to-BIM, IoT, ERP, contract documents, sensor data, disclosure data | Determines off-chain evidence quality |
| C3 | Contract function | Trigger, escrow, penalty, access control, provenance logging, exception warning | Translates audit rules into executable logic |
| C4 | Verification mechanism | Hashing, timestamping, oracle attestation, multi-source matching, smart contract event logs | Connects project facts with audit evidence |
| C5 | Validation type | Conceptual model, prototype, simulation, case study, systematic review, empirical study | Indicates evidence maturity |
| C6 | Limitation | Oracle risk, privacy, scalability, rule rigidity, legal enforceability, interoperability | Identifies future research agenda |
III. Descriptive Mapping of the Literature
Figure 2 shows the annual distribution of the included literature. The research conducted from 2016 to 2019 was mainly based on blockchain; from 2020 to 2022, BIM data traceability and smart contract security became more concentrated topics; after 2023, Scan-to-BIM payment automation, digital construction supply chain, and Audit 4.0 assurance began to converge. This trajectory indicates that the verification of engineering audit data is not an issue introduced by a single technology, but a new problem domain formed at the intersection of project digitization, supply chain traceability, blockchain records, and continuous auditing.
Figure 2. Annual Publication Trend in the Reviewed Corpus
Table 3 further provides the quantity, focus, and maturity of different research categories. Beyond the annual trends, Table 3 further summarizes the included literature from three dimensions: research categories, representative focuses, and maturity.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of the Reviewed Literature
| Category | Number | Representative focus | Observed maturity |
| Construction blockchain and contract management | 14 | Contract transparency, dispute prevention, payment execution | High conceptual maturity; medium empirical maturity |
| BIM and project data provenance | 9 | BIM-chain integration, data versioning, design information responsibility | Medium to high |
| Smart contract foundations and security | 8 | Architecture, vulnerability, platform comparison, automation boundary | High technical maturity |
| Oracle and off-chain verification | 5 | Trusted data feeds, privacy-preserving proof, smart construction objects | Emergent but pivotal |
| Supply-chain traceability | 7 | Material provenance, custody transfer, transparency, quality responsibility | Medium to high |
| Audit 4.0 and assurance | 7 | Continuous audit, smart audit procedure, ESG assurance, accounting information systems | High theoretical relevance |
As can be seen from Table 3, the construction project literature and the audit literature do not simply overlap; instead, they progress at both ends of the evidence chain. The former contributes resources from the factual side, while BIM, scanning modeling, IoT, material circulation and contract status constitute data objects that are collectible, anchored and comparable; the latter contributes resources from the standard side, and continuous auditing, automated assurance and intelligent auditing procedures stipulate which data can be interpreted as evidence. Figure 3 juxtaposes these two routes, and its significance lies in demonstrating that the research focus is shifting from “documenting project transactions” to “generating auditable facts”.
Figure 3. Research Trajectory from Construction Blockchain to Audit Verification
IV. Thematic Synthesis: From Construction Data to Audit Evidence
4.1 Construction Contract Management and Payment Verification
Most studies have generally summarized the functions of blockchain as contract status recording, transparent payment conditions, preservation of dispute evidence, and multi-party collaboration [9-13]. In the context of engineering auditing, these functions need to be re-examined. Linking contract terms to the blockchain is only the beginning. The core focus of auditing is whether the terms can form a verifiable mapping relationship with on-site engineering quantities, acceptance status, payment conditions, and responsible entities.
Based on this, Table 4 summarizes the auditing implications of each research line. BIMcontracts and Scan-to-BIM studies show that BIM component status, on-site scanning results, and contract conditions can jointly trigger engineering payments [14-15]. Their deeper value lies in reconfiguring the basis for payment, enabling payment decisions to be based on traceable and verifiable engineering facts. The engineering quantity is no longer just the declared number in the settlement stage, the progress is no longer just the form signed by the supervisor, and the payment conditions no longer exist independently from the on-site facts. After these three are connected by contract events, the formation time of auditing evidence shifts from before the completion settlement to the construction process. Thus, auditing shifts from confirming existing evidence to verifying how the evidence is generated, who generates it, and under what rules it is generated.
Table 4. Representative Studies by Research Stream
| Stream | Representative studies | Main mechanism | Implication for audit verification |
| Construction contract | Zhang et al.; Gupta and Jha; Li and Kassem | Blockchain records contractual states and reduces dispute opacity | Turns contract performance into traceable audit events |
| Payment automation | Sigalov et al.; Elsharkawi et al. | BIM/scan data trigger smart-contract payment | Links quantity/progress verification with payment conditions |
| BIM provenance | Celik et al.; Elghaish et al.; Liu et al. | Blockchain records BIM object metadata and responsibility | Supports version control and evidence attribution |
| Oracle verification | Lu et al.; Al Breiki et al.; Park et al. | Off-chain data are attested before entering smart contracts | Addresses the weakest point of on-chain audit logic |
| Audit 4.0 | Dai and Vasarhelyi; Rozario and Thomas; Guo et al. | Smart contracts encode audit procedures and alerts | Moves audit from ex post sampling to near-real-time assurance |
4.2 BIM Data Provenance and Responsibility Attribution
The BIM literature presents the second set of evidence. BIM can store information such as project quantities, but it does not automatically generate audit validity. Issues such as model version coverage, modification of component attributes, unclear liability entities, and inconsistency of the model on-site will weaken its evidentiary qualification. The research on BIM data sources supported by blockchain writes metadata, publishing entities, version information, and liability boundaries onto the chain record [16]; the research on digitalized circular construction supply chain further incorporates material, component, and lifecycle information into the continuous tracking chain [17]. These two studies jointly illustrate that the audit value of BIM-chain comes from the responsibility-based data structure, rather than the model visualization itself.
In this sense, BIM-chain undertakes at least three verification tasks. One is to trace the model source of project quantities or change entries, the second is to identify the entities responsible for data submission, confirmation, modification, and use, and the third is to compare the consistency of BIM component data with scanning results, IoT sensing, material entry, and payment applications. The smart building management research has provided several application frameworks [18-20], but most of these frameworks still center on collaborative efficiency. The engineering audit requires that each data object must answer questions about source, time point, liability, and reusability; data models that cannot answer these questions, even if highly detailed, are difficult to become high-quality audit evidence.
4.3 Smart Vision, IoT and Off-Chain Data Capture
The third set of evidence comes from intelligent vision and IoT research. The construction 4.0 literature indicates that machine vision, deep learning, sensors, and drones have entered progress monitoring, quality identification, safety management, and operation and maintenance monitoring [21]. These technologies expand the sources of audit facts and also bring data noise, model errors, equipment calibration, sampling frequency, and time synchronization issues into the verification chain. Smart contracts only execute input rules and cannot independently prove the authenticity of the site. The immutability of the chain cannot be equated with the authenticity of the entire chain; the pre-stage of engineering audit is precisely the collection, cleaning, cross-comparison, and liability-proofing of facts collected off-chain.
V. Technical Mechanisms of Smart-Contract-Enabled Verification
The review studies repeatedly discuss automatic execution, transparent rules and decentralized collaboration [22-25]; the security studies remind that re-entry attacks, integer overflows, access control flaws, timestamp dependencies and business logic errors will directly alter the contract results [26-27]. Engineering audits cannot merely treat smart contracts as control tools; they must also include the contract code itself as an object of audit. Once anomaly warnings are triggered by the contract, the contract logic becomes part of the evidence chain; code defects are no longer just risks to information systems, but will transform into audit conclusion risks and responsibility allocation risks.
The basic blockchain review and technical standards regard distributed consensus, non-modifiability, timestamps, transparent records and encrypted verification as the main advantages [28-31]. Engineering audits need to translate these capabilities into specific data objects. This article summarizes the credibility of audit data as follows:
（1）
Among them, represents the credibility of the i-th type of audit data; , , , and respectively represent data integrity, cross-source consistency, timestamp credibility, responsibility traceability, and abnormality and manipulation risks. This formula integrates scattered technical capabilities into a unified audit framework. Whether the data can be accepted depends on whether the records are complete, whether the sources can be mutually verified, whether the sequence is reliable, whether the responsibility can be traced, and whether there is an unidentifiable manipulation space.
Figure 4 presents the technical mechanism under this framework. The data layer is responsible for collection, cleaning and cross-source matching; the oracle layer completes trusted transmission and fact verification; the contract layer executes rules and triggers anomalies; the evidence layer solidifies logs, hashes and responsibility relationships; the audit analysis layer converts contract events into professional judgments and governance feedback.
Figure 4. Mechanism Framework of Smart-Contract-Enabled Engineering Audit Verification
Table 5 further narrows down this framework to six types of audit scenarios: quantity of work, progress, changes, materials, payment, and compliance, allowing the discussion of the mechanism to return to actionable audit objects.
Table 5. Application Scenarios, Data Sources, Verification Rules, and Audit Outputs
| Scenario | Primary data source | Smart-contract rule | Audit output |
| Quantity verification | BIM quantity take-off; scan-to-BIM; field measurement | If approved quantity equals measured threshold, record payable quantity | Quantity exception list; payable base |
| Progress verification | IoT sensors; site images; schedule system | If progress milestone is attested by oracle, trigger progress event | Milestone evidence; delay warning |
| Change order verification | Change documents; BIM version logs; approval signatures | If approval chain is complete, bind change to model version | Change legitimacy trace |
| Material traceability | Supplier records; QR/RFID; logistics data | If custody transfer is validated, update material provenance | Material source and responsibility record |
| Payment verification | Contract schedule; payment application; completion evidence | If quantity/progress/quality conditions are satisfied, release or flag payment | Payment approval or exception |
| Compliance verification | Regulatory requirements; inspection records; ESG data | If compliance threshold is breached, generate audit alert | Compliance warning and rectification record |
Figure 5 compresses the above process into an evidence chain. After the on-site facts are digitally recorded, hashed summarized, proved by the oracle, and processed by the contract events, they enter the audit evidence set. This process determines how the smart contract connects the facts and the rules in the engineering audit, and also makes the vulnerable links before the facts enter the rules fully visible.
Figure 5. Evidence Chain from Off-Chain Project Facts to On-Chain Audit Records
VI. Evidence Strength and Forest-Like Synthesis
Figure 6 uses a forest plot-style to express the strength of evidence, comparing the evidence density, method maturity, scenario closeness, transferability and transparency of limitations of different research streams.
Figure 6. Evidence Strength Plot by Research Stream
Based on Table 6, it can be seen that prototypes, case studies or system overviews have been developed for payment automation, BIM data traceability and supply chain traceability; while the continuous verification framework specific to engineering audits, trusted oracle governance and liability configuration are still relatively weak. The technical side has advanced faster, but the auditing system has absorbed the changes relatively slowly. In other words, existing research can already explain how data is linked to the blockchain and how rules are executed, but it has not fully explained how these on-chain events can be transformed into reliable evidence in auditing opinions, liability determination and dispute resolution.
Table 6. Methodological Characteristics and Evidence Levels
| Research stream | Dominant method | Evidence level | Key weakness |
| Payment automation | Prototype; case implementation; smart contract workflow | Medium-high | Limited cross-project validation |
| BIM data provenance | Conceptual model; prototype; cost analysis | Medium-high | Model-field consistency not fully resolved |
| Construction oracles | Conceptual framework; oracle design | Medium | Trust assumptions remain fragile |
| Supply-chain traceability | Prototype; case study; systematic review | Medium-high | Boundary fraud and human error remain |
| Audit 4.0 | Conceptual model; prototype; review | Medium | Few construction-specific audit cases |
| Privacy-preserving verification | Cryptographic model; zk proof; access-control design | Medium-low | High complexity and deployment cost |
| Legal governance | Conceptual and normative analysis | Low-medium | Limited empirical testing |
VII. Audit-Oriented Interpretation of the Literature
Supply chain traceability literature has brought the verification of engineering materials and equipment into a broader governance context. Product traceability studies have shown that event logs, identity authentication, and transaction records can reconstruct the product circulation chain [34-35]. Supply chain research regards transparency, traceability, multi-party collaboration, and digital integration as the main values of blockchain applications [36]. After being incorporated into engineering audits, these mechanisms correspond to material source verification, equipment entry verification, quality responsibility tracking, and abnormal circulation warning.
Table 7 summarizes the relevant technical mechanisms and their auditing functions. Blockchain enhances the visibility of digitized events, but human errors and fraud at the boundaries still exist. Theoretical research and case studies indicate that supply chain blockchains are still constrained by governance, incentive mechanisms for participants, the authenticity of data entry, and cross-organizational collaboration costs [37-40]. When engineering audits incorporate the results of supply chain traceability, they should not only adopt the traceability interface, but also connect material scanning, sensor collection, and logistics records with acceptance responsibilities, sampling mechanisms, and abnormal penalties. Without this layer of institutional connection, the traceability system is prone to remain “visible” but difficult to achieve “accountability”.
Table 7. Technical Mechanisms and Audit Functions
| Technical mechanism | Operational logic | Audit function | Residual risk |
| Hash anchoring | Store digest of off-chain data on chain | Detect later alteration of documents or BIM files | Original data may be false before hashing |
| Timestamping | Attach verifiable time to event record | Reconstruct sequence of progress, change, and payment | Clock synchronization and delayed submission |
| Oracle attestation | Transmit verified off-chain state to smart contract | Connect field facts with executable rules | Oracle manipulation and source dependence |
| Smart contract trigger | Execute payment, warning, or logging when conditions are met | Automate rule-based audit controls | Rule rigidity and coding defects |
| Event log | Record contract execution and participant actions | Support audit trail and accountability | Incomplete off-chain context |
| Access control | Limit who can submit, approve, or query data | Protect sensitive audit and contract information | Key management and role misconfiguration |
The audit literature elevates the aforementioned technical mechanisms to a guarantee logic. The research on blockchain accounting and guarantee proposes a real-time, transparent, and verifiable data environment [3]; the research on smart contract audit procedures writes some audit procedures into the contract execution [4, 41]; the review of blockchain and AI auditing, Audit 4.0 cases, and ESG guarantee research further connect real-time data, automatic control, anomaly warning, and the transformation of the auditing role [42-48]. The engineering auditing introduces smart contracts to re-institutionalize the continuous auditing idea. Evidence is no longer collected only at the end of the audit, and control is no longer remedied only after a problem is identified; instead, it is continuously generated, triggered, anchored, and fed back throughout the project lifecycle.
VIII. Challenges and Governance Pathways
The aforementioned literature collectively points to three types of governance issues. First, the authenticity of off-chain data. On-site measurements, manual inspections, sensor collection, and project management systems are located before the contract, and input distortion will be quickly solidified by the automated mechanism. Second, the credibility of oracles. Oracles are both the entry point for smart contracts to connect with the real world and a high-risk node for attacks, manipulation, and liability transfer [5-6, 32-33]. Third, the engineering context is difficult to be fully standardized. Changes in visa applications, for example, require professional judgment, and simple threshold rules will flatten engineering facts. Table 8 converts these tensions into governance paths and relegates technical issues back to the auditing responsibility and institutional recognition.
Table 8. Challenges, Causes, and Governance Pathways
| Challenge | Root cause | Governance pathway | Research priority |
| Off-chain data authenticity | Field facts are captured before entering blockchain | Multi-source validation; random inspection; sensor calibration | High |
| Oracle trust | Smart contracts cannot directly access external reality | Decentralized oracles; attestation protocols; liability allocation | High |
| Rule rigidity | Engineering events often require contextual judgment | Hybrid smart contract plus human-in-the-loop review | High |
| Privacy-transparency tension | Auditability may expose commercial data | Access control; zero-knowledge proof; selective disclosure | Medium-high |
| Legal enforceability | Code execution and legal responsibility are not identical | Smart legal contract design; dispute resolution interface | Medium-high |
| Smart contract vulnerability | Code defects and governance errors | Contract audit; formal verification; upgrade governance | High |
| Interoperability | BIM, ERP, IoT and finance systems use heterogeneous standards | Open data standards; API governance; semantic mapping | Medium |
IX. Future Research Agenda
The central issue for future research is no longer whether blockchain can be applied to engineering audits, but rather how to establish an auditable, explainable, and governable data verification infrastructure. Figure 7 presents the research agenda of this paper. A trusted oracle needs to expand from data interfaces to data source authentication, proof of collection process, anomaly detection, binding of responsible entities, and dispute review mechanisms. The integration of BIM, IoT and blockchain should extend from collaborative management to the design of audit evidence, clearly defining the evidence level, verification frequency, traceability fields and usage boundaries of various data. Continuous auditing should run through the entire project life cycle, incorporating bidding and tendering, contract signing, material procurement, construction progress, change endorsements, price settlement and final completion settlement into a unified evidence chain.
Figure 7. Future Research Agenda for Smart-Contract-Enabled Engineering Audit Verification
Human-machine collaboration forms another main research line. Tasks with clear rules can be executed by smart contracts, while auditors focus on handling major anomalies and substantive judgments. For payment data with commercial sensitivity, privacy computing and selective disclosure should also be introduced.
Table 9 summarizes the method paths and theoretical contributions of each research direction. Future research should integrate technical prototypes, auditing norms, responsibility allocation, and real project validation to form a complete research design.
Table 9. Future Research Agenda and Expected Theoretical Contributions
| Agenda | Key question | Suggested method | Expected contribution |
| Trusted engineering oracles | How can field facts be reliably translated into contract triggers? | Prototype plus adversarial testing | Strengthen the weakest link between reality and code |
| Audit-oriented BIM-chain design | Which BIM attributes should become audit evidence? | Design science; case study | Reframe BIM as evidence infrastructure |
| Continuous engineering audit | How can audit procedures be embedded into project lifecycle? | Process mining; longitudinal case | Extend Audit 4.0 to construction projects |
| Human-in-the-loop smart contracts | When should automated execution stop and professional judgment intervene? | Decision protocol design | Balance automation and discretion |
| Privacy-preserving verification | How can sensitive contract data be audited without excessive disclosure? | ZKP/MPC experiment | Resolve transparency-privacy tension |
| Legal-accountability interface | How should code execution, contractual obligation, and audit responsibility be aligned? | Comparative legal analysis | Connect smart contracts with institutional legitimacy |
X. Conclusion
This article conducts a systematic review on the application of smart contracts in the verification of engineering audit data, highlighting that the key in this field lies in reconfiguring the generation, solidification, execution and feedback mechanisms of engineering audit evidence. Existing literature has already established important foundations in contract management for construction and Audit 4.0, but these studies have not yet fully converged into a comprehensive framework for engineering audit data verification. The comprehensive results of this article indicate that technical literature provides tools for fact collection and rule execution, while audit literature provides guidelines for evidence interpretation and guarantee logic. There still needs to be an institutional connection based on the project life cycle between the two.
The proposed framework of “data source – off-chain preprocessing – oracle – smart contract – on-chain evidence – audit feedback” in this article indicates that smart contracts can only become an effective infrastructure for the digital transformation of engineering audits under the conditions of reliable off-chain facts, reasonable rule expression, clear responsibility subjects, and the possibility of audit judgment intervention. Future research needs to go beyond technical feasibility verification and enter real engineering projects, real audit processes and real institutional environments, establishing a more robust theoretical and practical connection between trustworthy oracles, privacy protection, continuous auditing, human-computer collaboration and legal governance.
References
[1] Zhang X, Liu T, Rahman A, Zhou L. Blockchain Applications for Construction Contract Management: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2023, 149(1). DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002428.
[2] Li J, Kassem M. Applications of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and Blockchain-enabled smart contracts in construction. Automation in Construction, 2021, 132: 103955. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103955.
[3] Dai J, Vasarhelyi M A. Toward Blockchain-Based Accounting and Assurance. Journal of Information Systems, 2017, 31(3): 5-21. DOI: 10.2308/isys-51804.
[4] Rozario A M, Thomas C. Reengineering the Audit with Blockchain and Smart Contracts. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 2019, 16(1): 21-35. DOI: 10.2308/jeta-52432.
[5] Lu W, Li X, Xue F, Zhao R, Wu L, Yeh A G O. Exploring smart construction objects as blockchain oracles in construction supply chain management. Automation in Construction, 2021, 129: 103816. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103816.
[6] Al Breiki H, Rehman M H U, Salah K, Svetinovic D. Trustworthy Blockchain Oracles: Review, Comparison, and Open Research Challenges. IEEE Access, 2020, 8: 85675-85685. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2992698.
[7] Page M J, McKenzie J E, Bossuyt P M, Boutron I, Hoffmann T C, Mulrow C D, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71.
[8] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 2009, 6(7): e1000097. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
[9] Liu H, Han S, Zhu Z. Blockchain Technology toward Smart Construction: Review and Future Directions. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2023, 149(2). DOI: 10.1061/JCEMD4.COENG-11929.
[10] Mahmudnia D, Arashpour M, Yang R. Blockchain in construction management: Applications, advantages and limitations. Automation in Construction, 2022, 140: 104379. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104379.
[11] Scott D, Broyd T, Ma L. Exploratory literature review of blockchain in the construction industry. Automation in Construction, 2021, 132: 103914. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2021.103914.
[12] Wang J, Wu P, Wang X, Shou W. The outlook of blockchain technology for construction engineering management. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 2017, 4(1): 67-75. DOI: 10.15302/J-FEM-2017006.
[13] Gupta P, Jha K N. Integration of blockchain in contract management for prevention of construction disputes: a systematic literature review and conceptual framework. International Journal of Construction Management, 2024, 24(10): 1054-1065. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2023.2274720.
[14] Sigalov K, Ye X, Konig M, Hagedorn P, Blum F, Severin B, et al. Automated Payment and Contract Management in the Construction Industry by Integrating Building Information Modeling and Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts. Applied Sciences, 2021, 11(16): 7653. DOI: 10.3390/app11167653.
[15] Elsharkawi H, Elbeltagi E, Eid M S, Alattyih W, Wefki H. Construction Payment Automation Through Scan-to-BIM and Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contract. Buildings, 2025, 15(2): 213. DOI: 10.3390/buildings15020213.
[16] Celik Y, Petri I, Barati M. Blockchain supported BIM data provenance for construction projects. Computers in Industry, 2022, 144: 103768. DOI: 10.1016/j.compind.2022.103768.
[17] Elghaish F, Hosseini M R, Kocaturk T, Arashpour M, Bararzadeh Ledari M. Digitalised circular construction supply chain: An integrated BIM-Blockchain solution. Automation in Construction, 2023, 148: 104746. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2023.104746.
[18] Nawari N, Ravindran S. Blockchain and Building Information Modeling (BIM): Review and Applications in Post-Disaster Recovery. Buildings, 2019, 9(6): 149. DOI: 10.3390/buildings9060149.
[19] Liu Z, Jiang L, Osmani M, Demian P. Building Information Management (BIM) and Blockchain (BC) for Sustainable Building Design Information Management Framework. Electronics, 2019, 8(7): 724. DOI: 10.3390/electronics8070724.
[20] Heidari A, Peyvastehgar Y, Amanzadegan M. A systematic review of the BIM in construction: from smart building management to interoperability of BIM and AI. Architectural Science Review, 2024, 67(3): 237-254. DOI: 10.1080/00038628.2023.2243247.
[21] Baduge S K, Thilakarathna S, Perera J S, Arashpour M, Sharafi P, Teodosio B, et al. Artificial intelligence and smart vision for building and construction 4.0: Machine and deep learning methods and applications. Automation in Construction, 2022, 141: 104440. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104440.
[22] Taherdoost H. Smart Contracts in Blockchain Technology: A Critical Review. Information, 2023, 14(2): 117. DOI: 10.3390/info14020117.
[23] Khan S, Loukil F, Ghedira C, Benkhelifa E, Bani-Hani A. Blockchain smart contracts: Applications, challenges, and future trends. Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications, 2021, 14: 2901-2925. DOI: 10.1007/s12083-021-01127-0.
[24] Hewa T, Ylianttila M, Liyanage M. Survey on blockchain based smart contracts: Applications, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 2021, 177: 102857. DOI: 10.1016/j.jnca.2020.102857.
[25] Lin S, Zhang L, Li J, Ji L L, Sun Y. A survey of application research based on blockchain smart contract. Wireless Networks, 2022, 28: 635-690. DOI: 10.1007/s11276-021-02874-x.
[26] Kushwaha S S, Joshi S, Singh D, Kaur M, Lee H N. Systematic Review of Security Vulnerabilities in Ethereum Blockchain Smart Contract. IEEE Access, 2022, 10: 6605-6621. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3140091.
[27] Alharby M, Aldweesh A, van Moorsel A. Blockchain-based Smart Contracts: A Systematic Mapping Study of Academic Research. 2018 International Conference on Cloud Computing, Big Data and Blockchain, 2018: 1-6. DOI: 10.1109/ICCBB.2018.8756390.
[28] Yaga D, Mell P, Roby N, Scarfone K. Blockchain Technology Overview. NIST Interagency/Internal Report 8202, 2018. DOI: 10.6028/NIST.IR.8202.
[29] Yli-Huumo J, Ko D, Choi S, Park S, Smolander K. Where Is Current Research on Blockchain Technology? A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE, 2016, 11(10): e0163477. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163477.
[30] Xu M, Chen X, Kou G. A systematic review of blockchain. Financial Innovation, 2019, 5: 27. DOI: 10.1186/s40854-019-0147-z.
[31] Bodkhe U, Tanwar S, Parekh K, Khanpara P, Tyagi S, Kumar N, et al. Blockchain for Industry 4.0: A Comprehensive Review. IEEE Access, 2020, 8: 79764-79800. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988579.
[32] Park J, Kim H, Kim G, Ryou J. Smart Contract Data Feed Framework for Privacy-Preserving Oracle System on Blockchain. Computers, 2021, 10(1): 7. DOI: 10.3390/computers10010007.
[33] Goncalves J P B, Alochio G, Villaca R S, Gomes R L. Data Integrity Verification in Network Slicing using Oracles and Smart Contracts. 2022 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain, 2022: 476-481. DOI: 10.1109/Blockchain55522.2022.00073.
[34] Wang S, Li D, Zhang Y, Chen J. Smart Contract-Based Product Traceability System in the Supply Chain Scenario. IEEE Access, 2019, 7: 115122-115133. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2935873.
[35] Wang L, Xu L, Zheng Z, Liu S, Li X, Cao L, et al. Smart Contract-Based Agricultural Food Supply Chain Traceability. IEEE Access, 2021, 9: 9296-9307. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3050112.
[36] Chang S E, Chen Y C. When Blockchain Meets Supply Chain: A Systematic Literature Review on Current Development and Potential Applications. IEEE Access, 2020, 8: 62478-62494. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2983601.
[37] Treiblmaier H. The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: a theory-based research framework and a call for action. Supply Chain Management, 2018, 23(6): 545-559. DOI: 10.1108/SCM-01-2018-0029.
[38] Rogerson M, Parry G C. Blockchain: case studies in food supply chain visibility. Supply Chain Management, 2020, 25(5): 601-614. DOI: 10.1108/SCM-08-2019-0300.
[39] Groschopf W, Dobrovnik M, Herneth C. Smart Contracts for Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Conceptual Frameworks for Supply Chain Maturity Evaluation and Smart Contract Sustainability Assessment. Frontiers in Blockchain, 2021, 4: 506436. DOI: 10.3389/fbloc.2021.506436.
[40] Kouhizadeh M, Sarkis J. Blockchain Practices, Potentials, and Perspectives in Greening Supply Chains. Sustainability, 2018, 10(10): 3652. DOI: 10.3390/su10103652.
[41] Guo X, Zuo Y, Li D. When auditing Meets Blockchain: A study on applying blockchain smart contracts in auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2025, 56: 100730. DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2025.100730.
[42] Han H, Shiwakoti R K, Jarvis R, Mordi C, Botchie D. Accounting and auditing with blockchain technology and artificial Intelligence: A literature review. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2023, 48: 100598. DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2022.100598.
[43] Dai J, He N, Yu H. Utilizing Blockchain and Smart Contracts to Enable Audit 4.0: From the Perspective of Accountability Audit of Air Pollution Control in China. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 2019, 16(2): 23-41. DOI: 10.2308/jeta-52482.
[44] Rozario A, Vasarhelyi M A. Auditing with Smart Contracts. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 2018, 18: 1-27. DOI: 10.4192/1577-8517-v18_1.
[45] Schmitz J, Leoni G. Accounting and Auditing at the Time of Blockchain Technology: A Research Agenda. Australian Accounting Review, 2019, 29(2): 331-342. DOI: 10.1111/auar.12286.
[46] Secinaro S, Dal Mas F, Brescia V, Calandra D. Blockchain in the accounting, auditing and accountability fields: a bibliometric and coding analysis. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 2022, 35(9): 168-203. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-10-2020-4987.
[47] Bonyuet D. Overview and Impact of Blockchain on Auditing. International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 2020, 20: 31-43. DOI: 10.4192/1577-8517-v20_2.
[48] Gu Y, Dai J, Vasarhelyi M A. Audit 4.0-based ESG assurance: An example of using satellite images on GHG emissions. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 2023, 50: 100625. DOI: 10.1016/j.accinf.2023.100625.
[49] Gu Y, Jiang L, Dai J. Using Blockchain and Smart Contracts to Combat Greenwashing in Environmental Disclosures. Accounting Horizons, 2026, online first. DOI: 10.2308/HORIZONS-2023-099.
[50] Kozlowski S. An Audit Ecosystem to Support Blockchain-based Accounting and Assurance. In: Continuous Auditing. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2018: 299-313. DOI: 10.1108/978-1-78743-413-420181015.
[51] Cong L W, He Z. Blockchain Disruption and Smart Contracts. NBER Working Paper No. 24399, 2018. DOI: 10.3386/w24399.