Rationality and technological dominance: Marcuse’s critical analysis of ethical digital accounting transformation in SMEs

Purpose This study aims to analyze digital accounting transformation (DAT) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) through the lens of Herbert Marcuse’s critical dialectics in technological rationality and proposes an ethical framework based on reflective utilitarianism as a normative solution. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts qualitative conceptual research with Herbert Marcuse’s critical analysis approach, based on a critical review and synthesis of literature in three domains: (1) SMEs DAT, (2) Herbert Marcuse’s critique of technological rationality and (3) the ethics of technological and business utilitarianism. No primary empirical data are used, as the study aims to provide a theoretical critique and normative synthesis. Findings The results of this study reveal that the implementation of DAT without a foundation of critical reflection can strengthen technological dominance, widen inequity and alienate SMEs, thus requiring reflective utilitarianism filtered by Marcuse’s false needs and surplus repression. The emancipatory DAT ecosystem framework rests on three pillars: human-centered design, structural equity and utilitarian ethics as a normative compass. Conceptually, this framework identifies five stakeholder groups: SME owners, internal accountants, administrative staff, regulators and software developers. In addition, this study defines well-being as a collective freedom that includes professional autonomy, participatory security and distributive justice. Originality/value In contrast to previous Marcusean studies on technology, which generally emphasize technological dominance without offering normative solutions, this study systematically proposes a new application of Marcuse’s three-step dialectic to the DAT of SMEs and integrates reflective utilitarianism to generate a new concept of emancipatory collectivity as the ethical goal of DAT. Furthermore, this study also identifies the context of five stakeholder groups and operationalizes well-being as collective freedom, bridging critical diagnosis with a pragmatic ethical compass.