sustainability

Article
Understanding Consumers’ Barriers to Using FinTech Services
in the United Arab Emirates: Mixed-Methods
Research Approach
Mohamed Bouteraa 1, * , Brahim Chekima 1, *, Nelson Lajuni 1 and Ayesha Anwar 2

1 Faculty of Business, Economics & Accountancy, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu 88400, Malaysia
2 Labuan Faculty of International Finance, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Labuan 87000, Malaysia
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.B.); [email protected] (B.C.)

Abstract: The cutting-edge development known as FinTech is now fast replacing traditional financial
services all over the world. Despite that, UAE consumers are still not embracing FinTech services
at the expected rate. This study hence suggests expanded research based on the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) to deeply examine the obstacles preventing consumers
from using FinTech services. This research utilised an exploratory sequential mixed-method approach.
Preliminary semi-structured interviews involving ten banking experts were undertaken to explore
the barriers preventing consumers from using FinTech services. To get additional empirical support
for the research concept, the study sequentially examined numerous components using a quantitative
cross-sectional online survey involving 332 bank customers. The qualitative investigation highlighted
six new barriers that consumers face when using FinTech. Through quantitative data analysis, the
preliminary qualitative findings were largely verified. As far as the authors are concerned, this
inquiry is the first to put forth a thorough model that takes into account organisational, technological,
individual, and environmental aspects for addressing the problem of low FinTech usage. By incor-
porating several new factors, this study also expands the UTAUT. Additionally, it is one of the first
studies to examine FinTech adoption employing a mixed-approach methodology.

Keywords: FinTech; financial technology; intention to use; UTAUT; mixed-methods; UAE

Citation: Bouteraa, M.; Chekima, B.;

Lajuni, N.; Anwar, A. Understanding
Consumers’ Barriers to Using 1. Introduction
FinTech Services in the United Arab
Banks and other classic financial institutions, which centralised market power in
Emirates: Mixed-Methods Research
the financial system, have controlled financial services for decades. Nonetheless, the
Approach. Sustainability 2023, 15,
2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/
financial sector is now undergoing a disruptive structural transformation in the fourth
su15042931
industrial revolution (IR 4.0) era as a result of numerous technological advancements,
together with the COVID-19 pandemic that has accelerated the process to stimulate big tech
Received: 28 December 2022 corporations [1,2] such as Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Alibaba to proactively
Revised: 9 January 2023
participate in the financial system. This led to the conception of Financial Technology
Accepted: 13 January 2023
(FinTech), a financial innovation made possible by technology that affects financial markets,
Published: 6 February 2023
institutions, and the provision of financial services via the introduction of new business
models, applications, procedures, or products [3].
FinTech is a cutting-edge innovation displacing traditional financial services and is
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
rising to prominence globally. There have been over 12,500 start-ups in FinTech, with
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. a global investment of USD 111.2 billion in H20 2022 [4]. The global FinTech market is
This article is an open access article anticipated to grow steadily and generate USD 324 billion in market value by 2026, with an
distributed under the terms and increasing compound annual rate of 25.18% over the 2022–2027 forecasted period, due to
conditions of the Creative Commons the currently vast numbers of smart device users who prefer online transactions along with
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// the evidence that FinTech implementation significantly boosts customer experience [5].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The significant advancements in information technology (IT) and their integration,
4.0/). including the internet of things, artificial intelligence, big data, cloud computing, and

Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15042931 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 2 of 22

blockchain have allowed financial services firms to automate their business processes and
fundamentally rationalise the financial services value chain with entirely new and inclusive
products, services, processes, and business models that can effectively fulfil the needs
and demands of users [6,7]. Academic studies back up the idea that FinTech services give
consumers access to a dynamic ecosystem because they offer personalisation, flexibility,
and simplicity of delivery at a reduced cost, which ultimately boosts productivity, prof-
itability, and financial inclusion [4,7]. Besides its qualities that promote the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [8,9], FinTech can make financial businesses more
sustainable by promoting green finance [10]. Additionally, FinTech potentially gives access
to financial services to 1.6 billion people in emerging economies. By minimising expen-
ditures and tax revenue leakage, it may boost the amount of loans made to people and
businesses by USD 2.1 trillion while also enabling governments to save USD 110 billion
annually. It is equally advantageous for financial service providers, who could sustainably
increase their balance sheets by up to USD 4.2 trillion while saving USD 400 billion yearly
in direct costs [11]. Substantial FinTech usage can enhance emerging economies’ GDP by
USD 3.7 trillion by 2025, or 6% more than the status quo [11].
The government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) continues to place a high pre-
mium on digital transformation. The UAE’s central bank established a FinTech unit in
December 2020, emphasising its dedication towards establishing proper regulations, pri-
vacy and data protection, low carbon and green FinTech, and inclusive financial services,
as well as towards developing a mature FinTech ecosystem [12]. The UAE is leading the
MENA’s FinTech market, recording a high of USD 2.5 billion with investment growth
of 64% reaching USD 819 million in 2022 [13]. The number of FinTech companies in the
UAE is steadily rising. In 2022, there were 189 new licensed FinTech companies taking
the total to 303, offering various financial services, including e-payments/transactions,
e-wallet, blockchain/cryptocurrency, digital banking/neobanks, InsurTech, WealthTech,
RegTech, crowdfunding, peer-to-peer insurance and lending platforms, remittance, and
others [13]. Investors are now encouraged to help regional projects financially thanks to
FinTech platforms, hence promoting UAE’s 2030 vision to become a regional and global
hub for FinTech and contributing to the country’s overall economic growth [12].
Across the globe, FinTech services adoption has seen a remarkable increase among
consumers from 16% in 2015 to 33% in 2017 and 64% in 2019, with the high adoption rate
mainly in nations such as India and China [14]. However, the UAE has experienced a
relatively poor consumer adoption rate, as low as 29% [15]. Despite the abundance of
FinTech options that are accessible, adoption is highly selective, and only a small number
of these have been a success. An example is e-payment services used by 84.3% of users,
fuelling the growth in the usage of FinTech services [16]; others have shown lower adoption,
including P2P money transfer [31%], robot advisor [27%], InsurTech [19%], crowdfunding
[17%], and P2P insurance [10%], according to the national survey by Statista (2020) [15].
This duality presents the possible issues or obstacles in the use of FinTech. This study is
thus inspired to look into the issues preventing clients in the UAE from utilising the existing
FinTech services. The diffusion of FinTech is essential in preventing the most disadvantaged
segments from significant financial losses, falling behind, attracting potential users, and
retaining existing consumers.
For the purpose of marketing technology services in emerging areas, comprehension
of the diffusion process is essential. Rogers [17] asserted that potential users’ readiness to
embrace technological innovation is key to ensuring technology’s success and widespread
adoption. Yet, limited comprehensive research findings have identified the factors influ-
encing the use of FinTech [3]. Several studies examining the obstacles to the adoption and
application of FinTech were found in the recent systematic literature analysis [18], most
of which focused on the payment sector. Studies have been conducted to evaluate the
FinTech phenomenon [19–25]. They mainly concentrated on particular characteristics that
are personal attributes of clients. However, they failed to take into account the individual,
technological, organisational, and environmental characteristics that, when taken together,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 3 of 22

would provide a solid theoretical foundation for fully comprehending consumers’ per-
ceptions [26,27]. The technology acceptance model (TAM) has been heavily cited in the
literature by numerous researchers looking into how FinTech services are being adopted.
The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), which is regarded as a
solid motivational basis characterising consumer behaviour towards technology, has re-
ceived little empirical support [25]. Thus, a theoretical need was identified in the literature
to broadly explore the challenges affecting consumers’ FinTech usage based on the UTAUT
model. Contextually, the existing studies have been mainly experimented within East Asia.
Their findings might not be practical in diverse Middle Eastern contexts such as the UAE
due to the prevalence of distinctive consumer behaviour, cultural settings, social infrastruc-
ture, and economic indicators. As a result, it was determined that studies on the adoption
of FinTech should be performed for each country. The majority of authors took a positivist
approach to research designs by merely employing cross-sectional surveys to validate an
altered research model. Their determinants were created by synthesising prior research
and accepted hypotheses. As they ignored the mixed-method approach that merges the
strengths of quantitative and qualitative approaches in a single study to determine the
methodological contributions, most models were therefore primarily classified as restricted
and tactical.
The study aimed to address the following research questions (RQs) in order to close
the aforementioned research gaps:
RQ1: What challenges affect consumers’ usage of FinTech services in the UAE?
RQ2: What effects do individual, technological, organisational, and environmental
factors have on consumers’ intention to use FinTech services?
RQ3: Is the UTAUT model relevant for explaining consumers’ use of FinTech services
in the UAE?
Unlike the extant studies, this study essentially is a fresh attempt to bridge the identi-
fied theoretical, methodological, and contextual gaps by exploring the obstacles preventing
consumers from using FinTech services using a mixed-method approach and extending
the UTAUT framework in the UAE. The FinTech literature can benefit from the advance-
ments made by this study. First, it facilitates identifying the numerous issues affecting the
uptake of FinTech services among UAE consumers. Second, it employs and experimentally
extends the UTAUT model in forecasting the uptake of FinTech services, particularly to
the applicability and generalizability of the UTAUT in new contexts. Third, the study uses
both qualitative and quantitative approaches in a mixed-method approach, thus paving
the way for a clearer understanding of the intricate interrelationships between the new
elements influencing the uptake of FinTech services. Lastly, the results of this study pro-
vide insightful perspectives for researchers and help managers and policymakers to create
successful plans for influencing consumers’ digital usage behaviour.

2. Literature Review
2.1. FinTech: A Portmanteau of Finance and Technology
A new wave of technological innovations, known as FinTech, is regarded as a differen-
tiating taxonomy that primarily defines the financial technology sectors in various activities,
essentially concerning the enhancement of service quality via a heavy reliance on IT solu-
tions [28]. Many definitions of FinTech have been given in the literature, although they do
not differ considerably. It alludes to companies that operate beyond conventional financial
services via the utilisation of technology, with business models that alter the provision of
financial services [4]. As per the working definition of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), FinTech is a broad range of financial services that rely on digital channels for their
delivery and access [29]. FinTech refers to cutting-edge financial solutions made possible by
technological innovation. It is frequently used to refer to start-up businesses that provide
these solutions. Still, it also includes established financial service providers such as banks
and insurers to boost their competitiveness and improve financial functions and consumer
behaviour [4,7]. As an umbrella term, FinTech is the application of digital technology to
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 4 of 22

financial services [30], covering immense scopes of techniques, including data security
and financial service delivery. In the current study, FinTech describes technology-related
innovations used in designing and delivering financial services and products.

2.2. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Using well-established theoretical frameworks drawn from various socio-cultural
contexts, usage intentions and user behaviour have been studied. While the current ones
have been and continue to be utilised, validated, modified, or criticised, new frameworks
are being developed to address the shortcomings/insufficiencies present in the current
ones [31]. The TAM and its derivatives (TAM2 and TAM3), the Social Cognitive Theory
(SCT), the Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI), and the UTAUT are prominent among
the theories/models used for gaining insights into people’s and organisations’ likelihood
to embrace, adopt, and employ technology. TAM-based and UTAUT models have been
determined to be the most effective among these frameworks [32]. Owing to its highly
explanatory and predictive components, the UTAUT was shown to be the most effective
model for explaining technology adoption with 70% variance [33].
According to the systematic review [33], the UTAUT model is reliable for examining
people’s adoption of IT in various fields. However, when attempting to describe how users
embrace IT, particularly in consumer scenarios, the UTAUT model’s explanatory capacity
may be constrained [34]. According to Venkatesh [35], the addition of new determinants
could aid in broadening the UTAUT’s applicability in a consumer environment. In light of
this, the primary contribution of the current study is not only to replicate it in a new setting
but also to extend the UTAUT model by adding new individual, technological, organi-
sational, and environmental determinants. This creates a solid foundation to thoroughly
explain consumers’ intention to use FinTech in the context of emerging economies such as
the UAE.

3. Research Methodology
The study technique was developed using the mixed-methods approach. A mixed-
methods strategy minimises the weaknesses of both qualitative and quantitative methods
while combining their advantages in a single study [35]. The various research proce-
dures enable the researcher to accept, cross-validate, and verify findings within a single
study [35,36]. Therefore, this study adopted an exploratory sequential mixed-methods
approach to investigate the barriers preventing UAE’s consumers from using FinTech.
In order to get a comprehensive understanding of the subject, the study first reviewed
pertinent literatures. Using the information gathered during the preliminary stage of the
semi-structured interviews, the authors identified the empirical codes that most likely serve
as the foundation of the study. This made establishing a core set of variables and put the
research in a broader context. A hypothesis was then developed for each empirical code to
create the study’s final model. In order to gather further empirical evidence to support the
theoretical framework, the study investigated the developed hypotheses via a quantitative
cross-sectional survey using a larger sample.

3.1. Phase One: Qualitative Study

A preliminary qualitative study which examined the key elements influencing how
consumers perceive FinTech was carried out through semi-structured open-ended inter-
views with UAE bank managers. Based on the study’s objectives, the researchers created a
protocol for the interviews. In this case, study, the factors found in the interview transcripts
were categorised using the inductive method. A hierarchical framework was used to
develop the conceptualised interpretations, with the top-level notions serving as the pri-
mary factors of the study objective. Lastly, a theoretical narrative describes the framework
underlying the explanation of these factors.
Focus group interviews served as the primary data-gathering method for this study.
The main goal of qualitative research is to amass comprehensive knowledge about a
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 5 of 22

subject. As advised by many qualitative scholars, a purposive sample strategy was utilised
here to choose the suitable informants, namely the specialists, and to comprehend the
studied phenomenon [35–38]. Most contemporary qualitative academics have noted that
the researcher’s subjective assessment defines the sample size and that the researcher is
aware of when the saturation point has been achieved [35–38]. When the material has
reached the point of saturation, and no new themes are coming to light, the process can
be terminated [36,38]. As such, the semi-structured interviews with ten individuals from
varied positions and sites were sufficient in this study to accomplish saturation. The semi-
structured interviews were conducted between November 2021 and February 2022, and
each interview took about 45 to 60 min.
The transcriptions were analysed using Thematic Content Analysis (TCA), a quali-
tative method, to locate the codes related to the theoretical foundation, which served as
the basis for the research. The steps outlined by Braun and Clarke [39] were used for the
qualitative data analysis. These include conducting the interviews and recording them,
listening to the taped interviews and transcribing them, getting participants to confirm
the transcripts, coding the verified transcripts, naming and organising the codes, putting
quotes and memos into the proper codes, analysing the results and producing outputs, and
finally, putting the report into writing.

3.2. Phase Two: Quantitative Study

Based on the semi-structured interviews, several probable elements that might have
influenced consumers’ adoption of FinTech were found. The proposed final model from
the study was created using a set of hypotheses. After that, to evaluate the developed
hypotheses, a quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted among a larger sample
of UAE consumers gathered via an online survey between April 2022 and August 2022.
Two phases of the PLS-SEM in Smart PLS 3 were carried out to validate the results, i.e., the
measurement model assessment to confirm the instrument’s accuracy and validity and the
structural model assessment to test the study hypotheses. PLS-SEM was employed in this
study due to its suitability in the exploratory phase of the theory building, prediction or
expansion [40].
Meanwhile, power analysis determined the minimum sample size due to the lack of a
sample frame. Based on Cohen’s (1988) [41] formula for identifying the most appropriate
sample size, G*Power was utilised to determine the standardised significance criterion α,
effect size (ES), statistical power (1-β), and quantity of indicators. By utilising G*Power
for two tails, medium ES of 0.05, α of 0.05, power of 0.95, and ten predictors, it was found
that at least 242 respondents were needed. However, for the purpose of generating more
reliable outcomes, the researchers raised the sample size to 332.
To guarantee the validity of all the 53-question instruments, the measurement scales
used in earlier studies were modified where needed to meet the setting of the current
study. Multiple items with scales ranging from 1 for “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly
agree” were used to measure each construct. Appendix A lists the survey questions and
their sources. Despite the fact that the majority of people in the UAE are fluent in English,
the original instruments were translated into Arabic by a certified multilingual translator.
A second certified multilingual translator retranslated the Arabic version into English.
Next, the semantic equivalence between the back-translated and original versions was
examined. There were minor differences between the source text and the back-translated
version. In addition, during the pre-test, the questionnaire was validated by two senior
academic experts and one professional banker to detect any issues with phrasing, content,
or ambiguity. As requested by the academic specialists, a pilot survey involving 50 bank
customers was conducted. As the reliability of each construct was more than 0.70, the pilot
test findings were deemed satisfactory [42–44].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 6 of 22

4. Phase One: Qualitative Data Analysis and Findings

For the semi-structured interviews, the researcher contacted a number of banking
professionals. Ten bankers from different sites in the UAE ultimately consented to take part
in the study, which was enough to reach the point of saturation. In order to protect their
privacy, the participants were designated as R1, R2, through to R10. The selection of the
informants was based on their positions, professional backgrounds, and knowledge of the
banking business and this study topic (Table 1).

Table 1. Informants’ Professional Profiles.

Bank Location Current Position

R1 Dubai Bank Dubai Branch Manager
R2 Abu Dhabi Bank Abu Dhabi Branch Manager
R3 Abu Dhabi Bank Ajman Branch Manager
R4 Noor Bank Fujairah Branch Manager
R5 Abu Dhabi Bank Abu Dhabi Region Manager
R6 Emirates Bank Dubai Strategic Planning Director
R7 Emirates Bank Dubai Assistant General Manager
R8 Dubai Bank Dubai Sales Officer
R9 Sharjah Bank Sharjah Marketing Manager
R10 Sharjah Bank Sharjah Sales Manager

Six new subthemes in line with the four predetermined themes were produced from
the qualitative analysis: the individual attribute was denoted by consumers awareness
and personal innovation, the organisational attribute was denoted by firm reputation,
the technological attributes were represented by security and privacy and system quality,
whilst the environmental attribute was denoted by governmental support (see Table 2).
By asking the selected subject-matter experts to evaluate the data patterns with respect to
the related themes, the researchers were able to validate the study. This demonstrated the
degree to which the findings met the initial phase’s objective.

Table 2. Summary of the Qualitative Phase Output.

Sub-Themes Participants
Extracted Total
Themes R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10 Ratio
Participants
Consumers √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Individual × × 08 80%
Awareness
Attributes √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Personal
× × × 07 70%
Innovativeness √ √ √ √ √ √
Technological Privacy and Security √ √ √ √ √ ×
√ × ×
√ × 06 60%
Attributes System Quality × × × 07 70%
Organisational √ √ √ √ √
Firm Reputation × × × × × 05 50%
Attributes
Environmental Governmental √ √ √ √ √ √
× × × × 06 60%
Attributes Support

5. Research Framework and Hypotheses Development

The final research framework shown in Figure 1 was developed based on the UTAUT
model’s four core constructs as well as six additional factors identified during the qualita-
tive data analysis, including consumer awareness, personal innovation, firm reputation,
security and privacy, system quality, and governmental support. These factors were cat-
egorised under the four basic attributes of individual, technological, organisational, and
environmental. This served as the foundation for investigating to fully explain consumers’
intention to use FinTech services. The next subsection discusses each of the variables
proposed in this study and their most plausible connections.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 7 of 22

Figure 1. The Structural Model Results.

5.1. Original UTAUT Model

5.1.1. Performance Expectancy
A component of the UTAUT model, performance expectancy to predict consumers’
belief in the improvement of task implementation via the usage of technology [45]. It
was also identified as the most effective predictor of user behavioural intention in a later
revision (UTAUT2) [46]. Many researchers have paid close attention to performance
expectancy [47–51]. According to these studies, it is a crucial concept in the analysis
of improved information system usage. The degree to which FinTech meets customer
expectations is essential to fully understand its usefulness [23,52,53]. Therefore, consumers
may be more likely to use these services if they believe FinTech would significantly improve
their financial performance. This study hypothesised that performance expectancy would
affect consumers’ intention to use FinTech services in line with the assertion of the existing
literature and the UTAUT model, which claimed that IT-oriented products or services boost
job performance and enable efficient, useful, effortless, and timely transactions. This debate
resulted in the hypothesis below:
H1: There is a significant relationship between performance expectancy and consumers’
intention to use FinTech services.

5.1.2. Effort Expectancy

Effort expectancy determines users’ level of convenience when utilising certain in-
formation systems [45]. Regarding the influence of effort expectation on technological
behaviour, prior literatures have reported a variety of contradictory findings. Numerous
studies have found that consumers’ intentions are significantly influenced by effort ex-
pectancy [23,54,55]. Contrarily, it was asserted in other empirical research that it is not a
substantial factor, such as in the adoption of e-learning [56], e-voting [57], mobile com-
merce [2], and green technology [58,59]. Particularly, contradictory findings have been
reported in the context of FinTech. Rahim et al. [52] found an insignificant influence on
consumer perception, which conflicts with the conclusion of Yeh et al. [53] who confirmed
the relationship. These wildly divergent findings demonstrated the need to investigate how
effort expectancies affect users’ intentions to use FinTech services. According to the UTAUT
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 8 of 22

model, consumers might not hesitate to use valuable and convenient IT-based services
when making financial transactions. This provided support for the second hypothesis,
which proposed that consumers’ expectation of effort would influence their decision to use
FinTech services:
H2: There is a significant relationship between effort expectancy and consumers’ intention
to use FinTech services.

5.1.3. Social Influence

Theories of social psychology stress the significance of social influence in shaping
behaviour. According to Bandura and Walters’ [60] social learning theory, people can
learn from one another by communicating with reliable contacts. In addition, the conflict
elaboration theory of social impact proposed that an individual’s relationships with other
group members should be considered while deciding whether to embrace or reject a cer-
tain technology [61]. Many theories and models of the adoption and use of technology,
including the TRA, TBP, TAM, and UTAUT, contend that social influence is a key factor
in determining a person’s behavioural intention. Social influence is the degree to which
an individual’s use of technology is influenced by the opinions of others [45]. Despite
not supporting technology usage, the theory underlying social influence holds that such
people will nonetheless utilise technology if they perceive that it will boost their reputation
among their peers [62]. Numerous empirical researchers have found that social influence
has a significant impact on user behaviour [26,63–66]. However, subsequent studies de-
bunked this notion as they found no conclusive evidence to the claim [67–70]. Likewise,
contradictory findings about the function of social influence have been reported in FinTech
research. Some studies supported the beneficial effects of social influence [23,52,53,59,71].
Others, however, claimed that it was not a significant factor in determining how consumers
felt [58,59,72]. These contradictory results suggest that social influence is highly context-
dependent, which motivates the review of the study’s setting. According to the UTAUT
model, it can be concluded that some technology services are in style, lending support to
the notion that consumers’ intentions to use FinTech services are influenced by the social
influence construct:
H3: There is a significant relationship between social influence and consumers’ intention to
use FinTech services.

5.1.4. Facilitating Conditions

The provision of technical resources needed to facilitate the deployment of a certain
technology is referred to as a facilitating condition [45]. According to the UTAUT, facilitating
condition is a construct that reflects an individual’s sense of control over their behaviour [73].
Although the extended UTAUT2 corroborated this direct effect, the original UTAUT did not
indicate a direct relationship between facilitating conditions and behavioural intention [46].
The research emphasised the significance of favourable circumstances as a critical indicator
of intention to employ various technologies [50,74–76]. There is still a lack of data from the
context of the UAE, a Middle Eastern country which is socially and economically distinct.
Practically, facilitating conditions refer to when consumers have adequate supporting
resources such as the expertise to embrace FinTech services, easy Internet access, the
necessary smart equipment, and expert advice, allowing them to gain insightful ideas.
Consequently, the following hypothesis was put forth:
H4: There is a significant relationship between facilitating conditions and consumers’
intention to use FinTech services.

5.2. Individual Attributes

5.2.1. Consumer Awareness
The acceptance of innovations requires awareness [77]. The more knowledge is of-
fered on technology properties, innovation is expected to rise [17]. People will eventually
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 9 of 22

become more aware of and driven to support a particular service if they are well-informed
about it [78]. A technology’s acceptability is hampered by people’s ignorance of its ad-
vantages, limitations, and benefits [79,80]. Numerous academics have emphasised how
awareness might affect consumers’ behavioural intention [71,81–84]. This suggests that
offering additional details about the precise characteristics of FinTech services may have a
favourable impact on the adopters’ choices. It is expected that consumers with high levels
of awareness would be more likely to accept innovative FinTech by taking into account the
perception of the informants in the qualitative study as well as the discussion presented
above. Consequently, it is hypothesised that:
H5: There is a significant relationship between consumer awareness and their intention to
use FinTech services.

5.2.2. Personal Innovativeness

According to diffusion theory, adopters have positive expectations about new tech-
nologies [85]. Positive attitudes toward technology adoption influence user satisfac-
tion favourably [86], thus encouraging innovation and improving technology usage be-
haviour [87]. In the sphere of technology, Agarwal and Prasad [88] established the idea of
personal innovativeness, i.e., an individual’s disposition to use a certain new technology.
Although it was initially proposed as a moderating element [88], personal innovative-
ness has been shown to be a crucial antecedent in adopting innovations [89]. Numerous
empirical investigations have found that a person’s capacity for innovation influences
their behaviour [70,90]. This suggests that highly inventive people are better disposed to
using a variety of FinTech services. The following hypothesis was developed based on the
informants’ expectations in the qualitative inquiry and the prior literatures:
H6: There is a significant relationship between personal innovativeness and consumers’
intention to use FinTech services.

5.3. Technological Attributes

5.3.1. Security and Privacy
Security and privacy have become more crucial due to new technologies’ expanding
capacity for information processing and integration into consumers’ everyday lives. Due to
their growing sense of insecurity on how their personal data are being collected and han-
dled [91], consumers find it difficult to accept their lack of control over their behaviour [92].
Yoon et al. [93] emphasised that security and privacy are conditions for technology adop-
tion, and further highlighted the quantitative significance of this issue. Positive perceptions
of security and privacy are associated with a better likelihood to adopt a new financial
system [94] and services [26], higher e-satisfaction [95], user trust [2,24], and better service
selection [96]. Meanwhile, Chatterjee [97] and Bouteraa et al. [58] asserted the possibility
that consumers are not concerned about security and privacy when using new technology
in some settings. The following hypothesis was developed in light of the requirements for
high-security measures in FinTech and the expectations set forth in the qualitative phase of
the study:
H7: There is a significant relationship between security and privacy and consumers’ inten-
tion to use FinTech services.

5.3.2. System Quality

In both the original DeLone and McLean Information Systems Success Model (D&M
model) [98] and its amended version [99], system quality is put forth as one of the most
strategic elements. It is essential for obtaining the production output associated with an in-
formation processing system. The technological level of a system’s information production
success determines its quality [98]. This pertains to the software and data elements and
measures the system’s technical soundness [100]. Customer impressions of information
retrieval and service delivery are key indicators of system quality [101]. Users may require
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 10 of 22

certain features of system quality, such as usability, availability, dependability, adaptability,

accessibility, and response time [99]. The body of research highlights the significance of
system quality as a key indicator of the desire to utilise a variety of technologies [102–106].
This implies that higher system quality encourages more consumers to use the services.
According to the expectations of the informants described in the qualitative study and
the aforementioned literature, FinTech necessitates a thorough system structural design,
a quick response time, and reliability to perform various operations in a flexible process
without interruptions. As such, the hypothesis below was developed:
H8: There is a significant relationship between system quality and consumers’ intention to
use FinTech services.

5.3.3. Organisational Attributes

Firm Reputation
One of a company’s most important intangible assets is “reputation” which is built
through time through the establishment of its credibility and believability [107] and
of which primarily influences the behaviour of its clients [108]. Based on previous be-
haviour and anticipated future outcomes, an organisation’s corporate reputation deter-
mines whether it will be preferred by stakeholders over its main competitors [109]. Con-
sumer decision-making has long placed a premium on corporate reputation [107]. When
creating their overall perceptions, consumers give a lot of weight to a company’s repu-
tation [110–114]. Many studies have shown the importance of reputation in predicting
technological adoption [115–117]. This means that customer behaviour regarding a com-
pany’s services is formed based on the company’s honesty, goodwill, and capacity to
provide efficient, advantageous, and trustworthy services. Nevertheless, little attention
has been paid to how a company’s reputation may affect FinTech usage. In line with the
expectations stated in the qualitative investigation and the existing literature, this study
hence hypothesised that:
H9: There is a significant relationship between a firm reputation and consumers’ intention
to use FinTech services.

5.4. Environmental Attributes

Government Support
The government has the ability to improve service credibility and reliability by pro-
moting the application of technology in financial innovations and making infrastructural
investments. Governmental provision drives consumers’ sense of security when utilising
financial services [118]. A strong correlation between government funding and consumers’
adoption of innovation has been discovered via empirical studies [118–121]. However,
several studies also claim the non-significance of governmental support as a factor in this
context [122–124]. This suggests that the level of governmental support varies by country
and environment. There is, however, a scarcity of research on the connection between
governmental support and consumers’ intention to use FinTech services in the UAE. Based
on all the above, this study hence hypothesised that:
H10: There is a significant relationship between governmental support and consumers’
intention to use FinTech services.

6. Phase Two: Quantitative Data Analysis and Results

6.1. Sample of Study
In order to identify any missing values, descriptive statistics analysis was used with
IBM-SPSS; the findings revealed none. However, out of the 338 cases, six were identified to
be multivariate outliers and therefore removed [125]. This process was performed using
the conventional method for detecting multivariate outliers, which involves computing the
squared Mahalanobis distance at p < 0.001 for each case in the dataset [126]. Ultimately, for
the actual data analysis, 332 cases were used. Table 3 summarises the demographic statistics.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 11 of 22

Harman’s single-factor test was used to detect common method bias typically occurring in
survey data. A value of 37% was attained, and as it was lower than the threshold value of
50%, it was concluded that common method bias did not occur in the data [127].

Table 3. Sample’s Demographic Description N = 332 [100%].

Grouping Frequency Ratio

Male 217 65.4%
Gender
Female 115 34.6%
18 to 39 yrs 209 63%
Age
40 yrs and above 123 37%
College Diploma 28 8.4%
First Degree (Bachelor) 130 39.2%
Education level
Professional certificate 62 18.7%
Others 5 1.5%
Professional, e.g., lawyer, doctor, engineer 148 44.6%
Manager/Executive 38 11.4%
Academician 34 10.2%
Occupation Student 28 8.4%
Merchant/Businessman 77 23.2%
Unemployed 4 1.2%
Other 3 0.9%

6.2. Assessment of Measurement Model

The measurement model assessment entails the evaluation of reliability (composite re-
liability (CR)), convergent validity (factor loadings and average variance extracted or AVE),
and discriminant validity (Hetrotrait-Monotrait (HTMT)) [42]. Table 4 presents the results
for the factor loadings, AVE, and CR, namely 0.70, 0.5, and 0.7, correspondingly [42–44,128].

Table 4. Summary Results of Convergent Validity and Reliability.

Constructs Indicators Loadings CR AVE

IN1 0.819
IN2 0.828
IN3 0.942
Intention 0.966 0.802
IN4 0.932
IN5 0.939
IN6 0.927
PE1 0.830
PE2 0.906
Performance Expectancy 0.897 0.687
PE3 0.817
PE4 0.755
EE1 0.869
EE2 0.743
Effort Expectancy 0.884 0.658
EE3 0.753
EE4 0.871
FC1 0.742
FC2 0.842
Facilitating Conditions FC3 0.833 0.895 0.632
FC4 0.840
FC5 0.705
SI1 0.834
SI2 0.895
Social Influence 0.900 0.693
SI3 0.882
SI4 0.705
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 12 of 22

Table 4. Cont.

Constructs Indicators Loadings CR AVE

PI1 0.844
PI2 0.734
Personal Innovativeness 0.888 0.665
PI3 0.801
PI4 0.876
AW1 0.852
AW2 0.787
Customer Awareness AW3 0.896 0.924 0.710
AW4 0.878
AW5 0.793
SQ1 0.720
SQ2 0.877
SQ3 0.802
System Quality 0.902 0.609
SQ4 0.824
SQ5 0.849
SQ6 0.568
FR1 0.905
FR2 0.837
Firm Reputation FR3 0.865 0.934 0.738
FR4 0.812
FR5 0.873
SP1 0.884
SP2 0.850
Security and Privacy 0.905 0.704
SP3 0.828
SP4 0.790
GS1 0.857
GS2 0.858
Government Support GS3 0.924 0.951 0.794
GS4 0.925
GS5 0.889
All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.05.

HTMT ratios were used to assess discriminant validity. Table 5 presents the results,
i.e., HTMT values of 0.85 and below for all the constructs [129]. This means that there
are no discriminant validity issues in the dataset, thus confirming the validity of the
measurement model.

Table 5. Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).

AW FR EE FC GS IN PE PI SI SQ SP
AW
FR 0.377
EE 0.505 0.394
FC 0.551 0.619 0.729
GS 0.203 0.624 0.323 0.558
IN 0.680 0.367 0.567 0.651 0.305
PE 0.578 0.451 0.694 0.652 0.298 0.847
PI 0.785 0.473 0.385 0.486 0.323 0.600 0.475
SI 0.352 0.614 0.568 0.753 0.530 0.493 0.524 0.317
SQ 0.611 0.648 0.641 0.784 0.523 0.678 0.708 0.471 0.651
SP 0.557 0.574 0.486 0.656 0.372 0.596 0.643 0.419 0.571 0.843

6.3. Assessment of Structural Model

Although discriminant validity had been identified in the evaluation of the outer
model, lateral collinearity problems could result in statistical instability and/or unreliable
conclusions [130]. This issue was hence examined. VIF ≥ 5 suggests possible collinearity
problems [43,44,128,131]. As shown in Table 6, the results support the assertion that multi-
collinearity had no impact on the outcomes because all values VIF < 5.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 13 of 22

Table 6. Structural Model Results.

H Confidence Intervals [ƒ2 ]

Relationship Std.β t- Statistics p-Values Decision VIF
Lower Upper
H1 PE » IN 0.496 12.446 0.000 *** 0.413 0.571 Supported 2.132 0.420
H2 EE » IN −0.002 0.096 0.923 −0.092 0.096 Not supported 2.265 0.003
H3 SI » IN 0.043 1.038 0.299 −0.033 0.116 Not supported 2.000 0000
H4 FC » IN 0.122 2.713 0.007 ** 0.035 0.208 Supported 2.763 0.014
H5 Aw » IN 0.259 5.515 0.000 *** 0.164 0.348 Supported 3.027 0.082
H6 PI » IN 0.155 2.709 0.007 ** 0.037 0.263 Supported 2.077 0.035
H7 SP » IN 0.070 1.433 0.152 −0.028 0.173 Not supported 2.737 0.003
H8 SQ » IN 0.169 2.685 0.007 ** 0.042 0.291 Supported 3.499 0.028
H9 FR » IN 0.158 3.472 0.001 ** 0.248 0.074 Supported 2.068 0.043
H10 GS » IN 0.029 0.782 0.434 −0.052 0.102 Not supported 1.690 000
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.

Next, the structural model assessment was conducted for hypothesis testing. Boot-
strapping was conducted using 5000 iterations following the suggestion of Hair et al. [128].
The results are presented in Table 6 and Figure 1. An R2 value of 72.2% was gener-
ated, explaining the substantial variance in behavioural intention, fulfilling the previously
set [43,44,128,131]. Additionally, determined was the effect size [ƒ2 ], whereby a majority of
the variables were found to have a small to medium effect based on Cohen’s criteria [132].
The result of the predictive relevance (Q2 ) for the endogenous construct is larger than the
null (Intention: Q2 = 0.579) [128].
This research also examined the PLS predict as a validation of the model’s predictive
relevance. PLS predict was employed to calculate the case-level predictions of PLS predict
whereby k = 10, following the suggestions of Hair et al. [42] and Shmueli [43]. The Q2
predict values were shown to be above zero (Q2 predict > 0), suggesting that all the
indicators had outperformed the Linear Model (LM) benchmark. This allowed for the
RMSE values and naïve LM benchmark to be compared. The PLS-SEM and LM results’
comparison showed that indicators generated smaller prediction errors in comparison to the
LM (PLS-SEM < LM) (see Table 7), suggesting the model’s medium predictive power [43].
This means that the model can predict responses accurately utilising out-of-sample data
and generating testable predictions.

Table 7. Results of PLS Predict.

PLS Predict LM predict [LM-PLS]

Indicators
RMSE Q2 Predict RMSE Q2 Predict RMSE
IN4 0.511 0.634 0.498 0.653 −0.013
IN3 0.537 0.613 0.565 0.572 0.028
IN6 0.543 0.602 0.533 0.617 −0.01
IN2 0.628 0.417 0.586 0.494 −0.042
IN1 0.685 0.459 0.720 0.403 0.035
IN5 0.540 0.635 0.575 0.586 0.035
Intention = IN; Root Mean Squared Error = RMSE; Linear Model = LM.

7. Discussion and Conclusions

7.1. Meta-Inference
Meta-inference was used in conjunction with the bridge technique to reconcile the
qualitative and quantitative data in order to evaluate the study’s conclusions [133,134].
According to the qualitative data study, consumer awareness and individual inventiveness
are important personal elements that might accelerate the acceptance of FinTech services.
The qualitative findings also suggested that the technical aspects of FinTech might oper-
ate as impediments, whereas system quality, security, and privacy may have the greatest
bearing. The informants also emphasised that the organisational, motivational forces or
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 14 of 22

barriers for consumers were constrained by their value judgements of the features of firms
(i.e., reputation). Additionally, it was determined that important environmental constraints
impacting consumers’ propensity to use FinTech services included government-related
policies, regulations, and incentives. The quantitative data analysis mostly supported the
preliminary qualitative findings, which revealed that consumer awareness, innovation, sys-
tem quality, and reputation of FinTech providers have a substantial influence on consumers’
inclination to use FinTech services.
Meanwhile, the effects of governmental support, as well as security and privacy,
were negligible. Accordingly, the majority of the qualitative findings could be generalised
using quantitative research according to the study’s findings, which suggests that the
mixed-method approach successfully bridges the qualitative and quantitative research
gaps and synchronises the advantages of both research methodologies. Cross-referencing
the empirical results in both research methodologies is beneficial to deepen comprehension
of the specific research issue.

7.2. Discussion
This study shows that the usefulness of FinTech services in managing finances, ensur-
ing efficiency, and saving time (i.e., performance expectancy), together with the accessibility
of the necessary technical resources for users (i.e., facilitating conditions), could signifi-
cantly increase consumers’ intention to use FinTech services. The underlying cause behind
such a result is the novelty of such service in the culture of the UAE, where most errands are
preferred to be served in a traditional manner from physical locations. These findings are
consistent with the UTAUT paradigm and earlier research [23,52,58,59]. Effort expectancy
was insignificant, in contrast to the UTAUT model’s assertion. This means that clients do not
typically evaluate the significance of FinTech services based on their practicality, simplicity
of use, interactivity, or competence. This behaviour may be attributed to reluctance and a
lack of creativity when trying new services. These results may also be linked to different
societal characteristics and principles influencing people’s perceptions [135]. Likewise, this
study found the negligible impact of social influence. This might be explained by the users’
perception of financial concerns as a solitary and private activity, which justifies their sparse
information sharing with peers and lessens the effect of peer pressure. Another reason
for this finding is that the majority of the sampled respondents were young adults (18 to
39 years old), i.e., members of Gen Y who were born and raised in the technological era.
This generation differs from Gen X in that it is more “self-directed” [70]. These conclusions
suggest that the UTAUT model is relevant for explaining consumers’ use of FinTech services
in the UAE.
This study’s two investigation phases demonstrated that consumer knowledge strongly
influences consumers’ intention to use FinTech services. This indicates that empowered
individuals may find them practical for managing their financial tasks. The use intention
of a consumer would be positively influenced by prior information and educated curiosity
regarding the existence, objectives, and numerous benefits of FinTech. This outcome is in
line with past studies [81–83,136]. This result signifies that people are likely to be aware
and find it meaningful to use FinTech services as it would benefit them in managing their
financial tasks efficiently.
The qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that clients with higher degrees
of inventiveness should have more favourable attitudes about FinTech services with a
significant predictive relevance and substantial effect size. Hence, personal innovativeness
is a significant barrier for consumers to use FinTech services, leading to poor uptake.
These findings suggest that less innovative users may not prefer the new services as they
are a relatively creative and advanced approach that is technologically different from
other traditional banking methods. The reason for such behaviour might be the lack of
understanding about the services, lack of an innovation mindset, uncertainty about the
technology itself, fear of failing, and the time and effort that has to be spent to understand
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 15 of 22

and master those innovative services. This conclusion backs the findings of previous
research [70,90].
Security and privacy, according to bank specialists, are crucial for increasing con-
sumers’ intentions to use FinTech services. The consumers did not, however, seem to share
this impression throughout the quantitative phase, indicating that security and privacy
issues did not rank highly with UAE consumers. The consumers’ upbeat opinions might
be linked to the strict secrecy regulations and the reliable framework of the UAE’s financial
sector, which is one of the most renowned and well-established in the world. Additionally,
the idea of desensitisation, whereby society is used to living and working in a vulnerable
environment, may be connected to decreased customer anxiety about impending security
dangers and privacy violations. The consumers, on the other hand, were apprehensive
about system quality. It became clear that they are drawn to a system’s capabilities and
dependability. This is in line with the assertion of existing literature, which showed that
when a technology system’s quality is improved, customer perception is significantly af-
fected [102–105]. In both study phases, it was also shown that a company’s reputation
has a substantial influence on consumers’ intentions to use FinTech. This suggests that
having a high reputation indicates that a company offers dependable services due to its
integrity and goodwill. Consumers today greatly rely on an organisation’s reputation in the
market because there are more possible negative implications of choosing the wrong service
providers. Customer intent is, therefore, driven mainly by a company’s prestige in the
marketplace. This backs up the argument made in the literature that corporate reputation
is an intangible organisational driver of technology adoption [116,117,137].
Furthermore, the bank professionals revealed throughout the qualitative phase that
governmental support is an environmental factor which improves clients’ inclination to
use FinTech services. The consumers, however, did not believe that the UAE government’s
involvement had changed their intentions. This could be due to the fact that the govern-
mental measures have not been successful or that the users believe that the measures have
no effect on their decision to utilise such services.

7.3. Theoretical Implication

The empirical results of this study significantly advance academic knowledge on how
consumers use FinTech services. Firstly, the study looked at six new elements that could
explain the difficulties faced by clients in the UAE when using FinTech services. Secondly,
the study increased the UTAUT model’s relevance and reliability in justifying the uptake
of FinTech services in the UAE. Third, the study provided an overview of the important
UTAUT factors influencing Emirati consumers’ acceptance of FinTech services. The model’s
ability to explain a large amount of variance demonstrates the UTAUT framework’s appli-
cability and effectiveness to this study. It is noteworthy that the main contributions not only
replicate the UTAUT model in a new environment but also considerably advance the theory
by integrating six new critical components. The PLS predict analysis demonstrated that the
study’s model had medium predictive power as a broader theoretical contribution. This
suggests that the model may produce testable predictions and reliably forecast reactions
from beyond the sample.
Through the use of two complimentary analytical techniques, TCA and PLS-SEM,
this research adds to the body of existing FinTech literature. By putting out six fresh
combinations of obstacles preventing the use of FinTech services, TCA made a significant
contribution to the findings. Additionally, the PLS-SEM results demonstrated the overall
impacts of the newly added factors and UTAUT variables on the uptake of FinTech ser-
vices. The subsequent findings supported the hypothesis that some variables, which were
unimportant in the PLS-SEM analysis, could encourage the use of FinTech when combined
with other variables.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 16 of 22

7.4. Practical Implications

The study’s findings can assist scholars and policymakers in better understanding the
effects of FinTech. The study can serve as a useful resource in creating effective policies
that aim to maximise the advantages for mass consumers, service providers, and the
national economy. The study explored and discussed how various individual, technological,
organisational, and environmental attributes affect the intention of consumers to use
FinTech services. The study offers a model for practitioners by better describing the actual
difficulties that their clients face when utilising FinTech services. In order to ensure a
smooth transition to digital consumer behaviour, it offers a robust framework for policy
design and the planning and coordination of development strategies.
According to the study results, FinTech service providers in the UAE should focus
less on social influence and more on the unique characteristics of their consumers, such
as awareness and encourage their innovativeness to boost their perceptions via direct
marketing. In order to maintain consistency in quality, FinTech providers should focus on
providing helpful, accessible, quick, convenient, functional, and flexible services instead of
focusing on security and privacy precautions, which are the areas that consumers in the
UAE care about the least. Additionally, a company should maintain a strong reputation in
the marketplace instead of seeking governmental backing because this intangible asset is
essential for luring consumers to use FinTech services.
As practical incentives to stimulate the use of FinTech services, potential users would
be offered practical financial services delivery channels in the shape of pleasant and quick
service quality combined with strong security and reliability at more affordable costs. Fin-
Tech embracing will also enable FinTech companies to lower high operational expenses and
avoid the waste associated with traditional processes. Economic improvements, digitalisa-
tion, social advantages, and sustainability goals are other incentives for using FinTech.

7.5. Limitations and Future Directions

To give the necessary insight for particular scenarios, this study primarily investigated
the idea of FinTech services from a demand viewpoint (consumers). However, because
one study cannot address all of these difficulties at once, it did not test the idea from the
supply side. Hence, this study suggests that future research looks into the obstacles to
FinTech adoption from the standpoint of FinTech providers. A deeper understanding of
consumer behaviour could also be attained by including the moderating role of demo-
graphic parameters such as gender and age. Re-investigating the study’s research model
in diverse industrial segments such as hospitality, healthcare, or education, and in other
contexts such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) or the Developing-8 (D-8) nations
which have similar development indicators to the UAE’s, could help to further validate the
conclusions of this study. The study is limited to a geographically specific sample, i.e., the
UAE. A noteworthy suggestion for future directions is to conduct a comparative study that
compares the results obtained in this study with similar studies conducted, for example, in
the EU, the USA, or other parts of the world.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, M.B.; methodology, M.B.; validation, M.B., B.C., N.L. and
A.A; formal analysis, M.B. and N.L.; resources, M.B. and A.A.; writing—original draft preparation,
M.B.; writing—review and editing, M.B, B.C., N.L. and A.A.; administration, B.C.; funding acquisition,
B.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was funded by Universiti Malaysia Sabah.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data and estimation commands that support the findings of this
paper are available upon request from the first and corresponding authors.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 17 of 22

Appendix A
Intention: Source [45,65,76]
IN 1 I intend to use fintech services in the future
IN 2 I predict I would use fintech services in the future
IN 3 I plan to use fintech services in the future
IN 4 I believe it is worthwhile for me to use fintech services
IN 5 I am very likely to use fintech services in the future
IN 6 I am interested to use fintech services
Performance Expectancy: Source [45]
PE 1 Using fintech services can make my financial transactions more efficient
PE 2 Using fintech services can save my time in conducting financial transaction
PE 3 Using fintech services can make my financial transactions more convenient
PE 4 Using fintech services can be useful in managing my finances
Effort Expectancy: Source [45]
EE 1 Learning to use fintech services is easy for me
EE 2 Becoming skilful at using fintech services is easy for me
EE 3 Interaction with fintech services is easy for me
EE 4 Overall, I think fintech services are easy to use
Social Influence: Source [45]
SI 1 People who are important to me think that I should use fintech services
SI 2 People who are familiar with me think that I should use fintech services
SI 3 People who influence my behaviour think that I should use fintech services
SI 4 It is trendy to use fintech services
Facilitating Conditions: Source [45,72]
FC 1 I have the knowledge necessary to use fintech services
FC 2 I have the resources necessary to use fintech services
FC 3 Using fintech services suits my living environment
FC 4 Using fintech services is compatible with my transactions
FC 5 Company assistance is available when using fintech services
Consumer Awareness: Developed by the authors
AW 1 I am aware of the existence of fintech services
AW 2 I am aware of the concept of fintech services
AW 3 I know the purpose of fintech services
AW 4 I know the benefits of using fintech services
AW 5 In general, I have enough information about fintech services
Personal Innovativeness: Source [88]
PI 1 If I hear about new technology, I look for ways to experiment with it
PI 2 I am usually the first to try new information technologies Among my peers
PI 3 In general, I am not hesitant to try out new information technologies
PI 4 I like to experiment with new information technologies
Security & Privacy: Source [92]
S&P 1 I believe that fintech services have adequate security measures
S&P 2 I believe that fintech services are able to protect my privacy
S&P 3 I feel safe about using fintech services
S&P 4 Security is important to me in using fintech services
System Quality: Source [98,106]
SQ 1 Fintech services have a comprehensive design
SQ 2 Fintech services have a fast transaction processing time
SQ 3 Fintech services are reliable
SQ 4 Fintech services can be used at anytime
SQ 5 Fintech services have good functionality relevant to my transaction
SQ 6 Fintech services keep error-free transactions
Firm Reputation: Source [107,113]
FR 1 This Fintech firm is reputed to keep promises for customers
FR 2 This Fintech firm has a good reputation in the financial market
FR 3 This Fintech firm has a positive reputation among customers
FR 4 The Fintech firm is well-known to the public
FR 5 This Fintech firm is reputed for transactions with customers
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 18 of 22

Government Support; Source [65,121]

GS 1 The government encourages the use of fintech services
GS 2 The government promotes the use of fintech services
GS 3 The government provided incentives to adopt fintech services
GS 4 The government guarantees the solidity of fintech services
GS 5 The government encourages new innovations in fintech services

References
1. Fulop, M.T.; Magdas, N. Opportunities and Challenges in the Accounting Profession Based on the Digitalization Process. Eur. J.
Acc. Financ. Bus. 2022, 10, 38–45.
2. Akram, U.; Fülöp, M.T.; Tiron-Tudor, A.; Topor, D.I.; Căpus, neanu, S. Impact of Digitalization on Customers’ Well-Being in
the Pandemic Period: Challenges and Opportunities for the Retail Industry. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7533.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Financial Stability Board (FSB). Financial Stability Implications from FinTech; Financial Stability Board (FSB): Basel, Switzerland,
2018.
4. KPMG. Pulse of Fintech; KPMG: Amstelveen, The Netherlands, 2022.
5. Market Data Forecast. Global Fintech Market Research Report; Market Data Forecast: Hyderabad, India, 2022.
6. Singh, S.; Sahni, M.M.; Kovid, R.K. What drives FinTech adoption? A multi-method evaluation using an adapted technology
acceptance model. Manag. Decis. 2020, 58, 1675–1697. [CrossRef]
7. Puschmann, T. Fintech. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2017, 59, 69–76. [CrossRef]
8. Bittini, J.S.; Rambaud, S.C.; Pascual, J.L.; Moro-Visconti, R. Business Models and Sustainability Plans in the FinTech, InsurTech,
and PropTech Industry: Evidence from Spain. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12088. [CrossRef]
9. Puschmann, T.; Hoffmann, C.H.; Khmarskyi, V. How Green FinTech Can Alleviate the Impact of Climate Change—The Case of
Switzerland. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10691. [CrossRef]
10. United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP]. Fintech and Sustainable Development: Assessing the Implications; United Nations
Environment Programme [UNEP]: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.
11. Manyika, J.; Lund, S.; Singer, M.; White, O.; Berry, C. Digital Finance for All: Powering Inclusive Growth in Emerging Economies;
McKinsey & Company: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016.
12. Fintech Middle East. Fintech News Middle East: UAE Fintech Report 2021; Fintech Middle East: Abu Dhabi, India, 2021.
13. UAE Ministry of Economy. Investing in Fintech in the UAE 2022 Dec. Available online: https://www.moec.gov.ae/documents/
20121/0/2021+06+13+Fintech+Investment+Heatmap+_WhyUAE+-%28003%29.pdf/8c954153-89f4-27d9-016d-5d51f8ef375f?
t=1644223394689 (accessed on 6 December 2022).
14. EY Global FinTech Adoption Index. Global FinTech Adoption Index 2019; EY Global FinTech Adoption Index: London, UK, 2019.
15. Statista. Share of Customers Who Adopted Financial Technology Solutions in the United Arab Emirates in 2020; Statista: Hamburg,
Germany, 2020.
16. Said, R.; Najdawi, A.; Chabani, Z. Analyzing the Adoption of E-payment Services in Smart Cities using Demographic Analytics:
The Case of Dubai. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Syst. J. 2021, 6, 113–121. [CrossRef]
17. Rogers, M. Diffusion of Innovation, 3rd ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983.
18. Kumar, J.; Rani, V. Journey of Financial Technology (FinTech): A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. In
Exploring the Latest Trends in Management Literature; Review of Management Literature; Rana, S., Sakshi, Singh, J., Eds.; Emerald
Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2022; Volume 1, pp. 89–108.
19. Nangin, M.A.; Barus, I.R.G.; Wahyoedi, S. The Effects of Perceived Ease of Use, Security, and Promotion on Trust and Its
Implications on Fintech Adoption. J. Consum. Sci. 2020, 5, 124–138. [CrossRef]
20. Ali, M.; Raza, S.A.; Khamis, B.; Puah, C.H.; Amin, H. How perceived risk, benefit and trust determine user Fintech adoption: A
new dimension for Islamic finance. Foresight 2021, 23, 403–420. [CrossRef]
21. Ngo, H.T.; Nguyen, L.T.H. Consumer adoption intention toward FinTech services in a bank-based financial system in Vietnam. J.
Financ. Regul. Compliance 2022. ahead of print. [CrossRef]
22. Singh, A.K.; Sharma, P. A study of Indian Gen X and Millennials consumers’ intention to use FinTech payment services during
COVID-19 pandemic. J. Model. Manag. 2022. ahead of print. [CrossRef]
23. Bin-Nashwan, S.A. Toward diffusion of e-Zakat initiatives amid the COVID-19 crisis and beyond. Foresight 2022, 24, 141–158.
[CrossRef]
24. Fülöp, M.T.; Topor, D.I.; Ionescu, C.A.; Căpus, neanu, S.; Breaz, T.O.; Stanescu, S.G. Fintech accounting and industry 4.0: Future-
proofing or threats to the accounting profession? J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2022, 23, 997–1015. [CrossRef]
25. Alkhwaldi, A.F.; Alharasis, E.E.; Shehadeh, M.; Abu-AlSondos, I.A.; Oudat, M.S.; Bani Atta, A.A. Towards an Understanding of
FinTech Users’ Adoption: Intention and e-Loyalty Post-COVID-19 from a Developing Country Perspective. Sustainability 2022, 14,
12616. [CrossRef]
26. Bouteraa, M.; Hisham, R.R.I.R.; Zainol, Z. Exploring Determinants of Customers’ Intention to Adopt Green Banking: Qualitative
Investigation. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag. 2021, 16, 187–203. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 19 of 22

27. Jeyaraj, A.; Rottman, J.W.; Lacity, M.C. A Review of the Predictors, Linkages, and Biases in IT Innovation Adoption Research. J.
Inf. Technol. 2006, 21, 1–23. [CrossRef]
28. Gai, K.; Qiu, M.; Sun, X. A survey on FinTech. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 2018, 103, 262–273. [CrossRef]
29. He, D.; Leckow, R.; Haksar, V.; ManciniGriffoli, T.; Rochon, C.; Tourpe, H. Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations;
International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
30. World Bank. Fintech and the Future of Finance—Overview; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
31. Izuagbe, R.; Ifijeh, G.; Izuagbe-Roland, E.I.; Olawoyin, O.R.; Ogiamien, L.O. Determinants of perceived usefulness of social media
in university libraries: Subjective norm, image and voluntariness as indicators. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2019, 45, 394–405. [CrossRef]
32. Shachak, A.; Kuziemsky, C.; Petersen, C. Beyond TAM and UTAUT: Future directions for HIT implementation research. J. Biomed.
Inform. 2019, 100, 103315. [CrossRef]
33. Souiden, N.; Ladhari, R.; Chaouali, W. Mobile banking adoption: A systematic review. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2020, 39, 214–241.
[CrossRef]
34. Tarhini, A.; El-Masri, M.; Ali, M.; Serrano, A. Extending the UTAUT model to understand the customers’ acceptance and use of
internet banking in Lebanon. Inf. Technol. People 2016, 29, 830–849. [CrossRef]
35. Creswell, J.; Creswell, J.D. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed.; SAGE Publications,
Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018; 371p.
36. Sekaran, U.; Bougie, R.J. Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 8th ed.; Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019;
432p.
37. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA,
2017.
38. Creswell, W.; Poth, C. Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design Choosing among Five Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications, Inc.:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018; pp. 1–646.
39. Braun, V.; Clarke, V.; Hayfield, N.; Terry, G. Thematic analysis. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences; Springer:
Singapore, 2012; pp. 843–860.
40. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in
marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [CrossRef]
41. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; L. Erlbaum Associates: Los Anglos, CA, USA; Hillsdale, NJ,
USA, 1988.
42. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
43. Shmueli, G.; Sarstedt, M.; Hair, J.F.; Cheah, J.H.; Ting, H.; Vaithilingam, S.; Ringle, C.M. Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM:
Guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur. J. Mark. 2019, 53, 2322–2347. [CrossRef]
44. Shmueli, G.; Ray, S.; Velasquez Estrada, J.M.; Chatla, S.B. The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models. J. Bus.
Res. 2016, 69, 4552–4564. [CrossRef]
45. Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Q.
2003, 27, 425. [CrossRef]
46. Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu. X. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Q. 2012, 36, 157–178. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41410412 (accessed
on 3 January 2023). [CrossRef]
47. Wiafe, I.; Koranteng, F.N.; Tettey, T.; Kastriku, F.A.; Abdulai, J.D. Factors that affect acceptance and use of information systems
within the Maritime industry in developing countries. J. Syst. Inf. Technol. 2019, 22, 21–45. [CrossRef]
48. Gupta, K.; Arora, N. Investigating consumer intention to accept mobile payment systems through unified theory of acceptance
model. South Asian J. Bus. Stud. 2019, 9, 88–114. [CrossRef]
49. Do, N.H.; Tham, J.; Azam, S.M.F.; Khatibia, A.A. Analysis of customer behavioral intentions towards mobile payment: Cambodian
consumer’s perspective. Accounting 2020, 6, 1391–1402. [CrossRef]
50. Bouteraa, M.; Raja Hisham, R.R.I.; Zainol, Z. Islamic Banks Customers’ Intention to Adopt Green Banking: Extension of UTAUT
Model. Int. J. Bus. Technol. Manag. 2020, 2, 121–136.
51. Petersen, F.; Jacobs, M.; Pather, S. Barriers for User Acceptance of Mobile Health Applications for Diabetic Patients: Applying the UTAUT
Model; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 61–72. [CrossRef]
52. Rahim, N.F.; Bakri, M.H.; Fianto, B.A.; Zainal, N.; Hussein Al Shami, S.A. Measurement and structural modelling on factors of
Islamic Fintech adoption among millennials in Malaysia. J. Islam. Mark. 2022. ahead of print. [CrossRef]
53. Yeh, H.C.; Yu, M.C.; Liu, C.H.; Huang, C.I. Robo-advisor based on unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Asia Pac. J.
Mark. Logist. 2022. ahead of print. [CrossRef]
54. Karjaluoto, H.; Shaikh, A.A.; Leppäniemi, M.; Luomala, R. Examining consumers’ usage intention of contactless payment systems.
Int. J. Bank Mark. 2019, 38, 332–351. [CrossRef]
55. Alabdullah, J.H.; van Lunen, B.L.; Claiborne, D.M.; Daniel, S.J.; Yen, C.; Gustin, T.S. Application of the unified theory of acceptance
and use of technology model to predict dental students’ behavioral intention to use teledentistry. J. Dent. Educ. 2020, 84, 1262–1269.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 20 of 22

56. El-Masri, M.; Tarhini, A. Factors affecting the adoption of e-learning systems in Qatar and USA: Extending the Unified Theory of
Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2). Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 2017, 65, 743–763. [CrossRef]
57. Mensah, I.K. Impact of Performance Expectancy, Effort Expectancy, and Citizen Trust on the Adoption of Electronic Voting System
in Ghana. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 2020, 16, 19–32. [CrossRef]
58. Bouteraa, M.; Raja Hisham, R.R.I.; Zainol, Z. Bank Customer Green Banking Technology Adoption: A Sequential Exploratory
Mixed Methods Study. In Handbook of Research on Building Greener Economics and Adopting Digital Tools in the Era of Climate Change;
Ordóñez de Pablos, P., Ed.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2022; pp. 64–102. [CrossRef]
59. Bouteraa, M.; Raja Rizal Iskandar, R.H.; Zairani, Z. Challenges affecting bank consumers’ intention to adopt green banking
technology in the UAE: A UTAUT-based mixed-methods approach. J. Islam. Mark. 2022. ahead of print. [CrossRef]
60. Bandura, A.; Walters, R.H. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1977; Volume 1.
61. Mugny, G.; Butera, F.; Sanchez Mazas, M.; Pérez, J.A. Judgements in conflict: The conflict elaboration theory of social influence.
Perception evaluation interpretation. Swiss Monogr. Psychol. 1995, 3, 160–168.
62. Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Manag.
Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [CrossRef]
63. Flavian, C.; Guinaliu, M.; Lu, Y. Mobile payments adoption—Introducing mindfulness to better understand consumer behavior.
Int. J. Bank Mark. 2020, 38, 1575–1599. [CrossRef]
64. Al-Saedi, K.; Al-Emran, M.; Ramayah, T.; Abusham, E. Developing a general extended UTAUT model for M-payment adoption.
Technol. Soc. 2020, 62, 101293. [CrossRef]
65. Amin, H.; Rahim Abdul Rahman, A.; Laison Sondoh, S.; Magdalene Chooi Hwa, A. Determinants of customers’ intention to use
Islamic personal financing. J. Islam. Account. Bus. Res. 2011, 2, 22–42. [CrossRef]
66. Juliana, N.; Lada, S.; Chekima, B.; Abdul Adis, A.A. Exploring Determinants Shaping Recycling Behavior Using an Extended
Theory of Planned Behavior Model: An Empirical Study of Households in Sabah, Malaysia. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4628.
[CrossRef]
67. Raza, S.A.; Shah, N.; Ali, M. Acceptance of mobile banking in Islamic banks: Evidence from modified UTAUT model. J. Islam.
Mark. 2019, 10, 357–376. [CrossRef]
68. Handarkho, Y.D. Impact of social experience on customer purchase decision in the social commerce context. J. Syst. Inf. Technol.
2020, 22, 47–71. [CrossRef]
69. Purwanto, E.; Loisa, J. The Intention and Use Behaviour of the Mobile Banking System in indonesia: UTAUT Model. Technol. Rep.
Kansai Univ. 2020, 62, 2757–2767.
70. Abbasi, G.A.; Tiew, L.Y.; Tang, J.; Goh, Y.N.; Thurasamy, R. The adoption of cryptocurrency as a disruptive force: Deep
learning-based dual stage structural equation modelling and artificial neural network analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0247582.
[CrossRef]
71. Bouteraa, M.; Al-Aidaros, A.H. The Role of Attitude as Mediator in the Intention to Have Islamic Will. Int. J. Adv. Res. Econ.
Financ. 2020, 2, 22–37.
72. Iqbal, M.; Nisha, N.; Raza, S.A. Customers’ Perceptions of Green Banking: Examining Service Quality Dimensions in Bangladesh; Green
Business; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019; pp. 1071–1090. [CrossRef]
73. Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.A.; Maruping, I.M.; Bala, H. Predicting Different Conceptualizations of System Use: The Competing
Roles of Behavioral Intention, Facilitating Conditions, and Behavioral Expectation. MIS Q. 2008, 32, 483. [CrossRef]
74. Wang, H.; Tao, D.; Yu, N.; Qu, X. Understanding consumer acceptance of healthcare wearable devices: An integrated model of
UTAUT and, T.T.F. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2020, 139, 104156. [CrossRef]
75. Jahanshahi, D.; Tabibi, Z.; van Wee, B. Factors influencing the acceptance and use of a bicycle sharing system: Applying an
extended Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2020, 8, 1212–1223. [CrossRef]
76. Chawla, D.; Joshi, H. Consumer attitude and intention to adopt mobile wallet in India—An empirical study. Int. J. Bank Mark.
2019, 37, 1590–1618. [CrossRef]
77. Guiltinand, J.P.; Donnelly, J.H. The use of product portfolio analysis in bank marketing planning. In Management Issues for
Financial Institutions; Shanmugam, B., Ed.; University of New England: Biddeford, ME, USA, 1983; p. 50.
78. Lujja, S.; Mohammed, M.O.; Hassan, R. Islamic banking: An exploratory study of public perception in Uganda. J. Islam. Account.
Bus. Res. 2018, 9, 336–352. [CrossRef]
79. Pai, R.R.; Alathur, S. Determinants of individuals’ intention to use mobile health: Insights from India. Transform. Gov. People
Process Policy 2019, 13, 306–326. [CrossRef]
80. Ratanya, F.C. Institutional repository: Access and use by academic staff at Egerton University, Kenya. Libr. Manag. 2017, 38,
276–284. [CrossRef]
81. Bouteraa, M. Barriers Factors of Wasiyyah (Will Writing): Case of BSN Bank. IBMRD’s J. Manag. Res. 2019, 8, 1. [CrossRef]
82. Chaurasia, S.S.; Verma, S.; Singh, V. Exploring the intention to use M-payment in India. Transform. Gov. People Process Policy 2019,
13, 276–305. [CrossRef]
83. Singh, N.; Sinha, N. How perceived trust mediates merchant’s intention to use a mobile wallet technology. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.
2020, 52, 101894. [CrossRef]
84. Baabdullah, A.M. Factors Influencing Adoption of Mobile Social Network Games (M-SNGs): The Role of Awareness. Inf. Syst.
Front. 2020, 22, 411–427. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 21 of 22

85. Rogers, M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
86. Khan, A.; Ullah, I. Emotional intelligence of library professional in Pakistan: A descriptive analysis. PUTAJ-Humanit. Soc. Sci.
2014, 21, 89–96.
87. Khan, A.; Masrek, M.N.; Mahmood, K. The relationship of personal innovativeness, quality of digital resources and generic
usability with users’ satisfaction. Digit. Libr. Perspect. 2019, 35, 15–30. [CrossRef]
88. Agarwal, R.; Prasad, J. A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information
Technology. Inf. Syst. Res. 1998, 9, 204–215. [CrossRef]
89. Thakur, R.; Angriawan, A.; Summey, J.H. Technological opinion leadership: The role of personal innovativeness, gadget love, and
technological innovativeness. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 2764–2773. [CrossRef]
90. Bervell, B.; Umar, I.N.; Kamilin, M.H. Towards a model for online learning satisfaction (MOLS): Re-considering non-linear
relationships among personal innovativeness and modes of online interaction. Open Learn. J. Open Distance e-Learn. 2020, 35,
236–259. [CrossRef]
91. Flavián, C.; Guinalíu, M. Consumer trust, perceived security and privacy policy. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 2006, 106, 601–620.
[CrossRef]
92. Pikkarainen, T.; Pikkarainen, K.; Karjaluoto, H.; Pahnila, S. Consumer acceptance of online banking: An extension of the
technology acceptance model. Internet Res. 2004, 14, 224–235. [CrossRef]
93. Yoon, J.; Vonortas, N.S.; Han, S. Do-It-Yourself laboratories and attitude toward use: The effects of self-efficacy and the perception
of security and privacy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2020, 159, 120192. [CrossRef]
94. Merhi, M.; Hone, K.; Tarhini, A. A cross-cultural study of the intention to use mobile banking between Lebanese and British
consumers: Extending UTAUT2 with security, privacy and trust. Technol. Soc. 2019, 59, 101151. [CrossRef]
95. Alalwan, A.A.; Baabdullah, A.M.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Kizgin, H. Examining the Influence of Mobile Store Features on
User E-Satisfaction: Extending UTAUT2 with Personalization, Responsiveness, and Perceived Security and Privacy; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2019; pp. 50–61.
96. Deb, S.K.; Deb, N.; Roy, S. Investigation of Factors Influencing the Choice of Smartphone Banking in Bangladesh. Evergreen 2019,
6, 230–239. [CrossRef]
97. Chatterjee, S. Factors Impacting Behavioral Intention of Users to Adopt IoT in India. Int. J. Inf. Secur. Priv. 2020, 14, 92–112.
[CrossRef]
98. DeLone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 1992, 3, 60–95.
[CrossRef]
99. Delone, W.H.; McLean, E.R. The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. J. Manag. Inf.
Syst. 2003, 19, 9–30. [CrossRef]
100. Gorla, N. An assessment of information systems service quality using SERVQUAL+. ACM SIGMIS Database DATABASE Adv. Inf.
Syst. 2011, 42, 46–70. [CrossRef]
101. Phuong, N.N.D.; Dai Trang, T.T. Repurchase Intention: The Effect of Service Quality, System Quality, Information Quality, and
Customer Satisfaction as Mediating Role: A PLS Approach of M-Commerce Ride Hailing Service in Vietnam. Mark. Brand. Res.
2018, 5, 78–91.
102. Zhang, H.; He, J.; Shi, X.; Hong, Q.; Bao, J.; Xue, S. Technology Characteristics, Stakeholder Pressure, Social Influence, and Green
Innovation: Empirical Evidence from Chinese Express Companies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2891. [CrossRef]
103. Sensuse, D.I.; Rochman, H.N.; al Hakim, S.; Winarni, W. Knowledge management system design method with joint application
design (JAD) adoption. VINE J. Inf. Knowl. Manag. Syst. 2021, 51, 27–46. [CrossRef]
104. Anggreni, N.M.M.; Ariyanto, D.; Suprasto, H.B.; Dwirandra, A.A.N.B. Successful adoption of the village’s financial system.
Accounting 2020, 6, 1129–1138. [CrossRef]
105. Albashrawi, M.A.; Turner, L.; Balasubramanian, S. Adoption of Mobile ERP in Educational Environment. Int. J. Enterp. Inf. Syst.
2020, 16, 184–200. [CrossRef]
106. Ahn, T.; Ryu, S.; Han, I. The impact of Web quality and playfulness on user acceptance of online retailing. Inf. Manag. 2007, 44,
263–275. [CrossRef]
107. Nguyen, N.; Leblanc, G. Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention decisions in services. J. Retail. Consum.
Serv. 2001, 8, 227–236. [CrossRef]
108. Helm, S.; Eggert, A.; Garnefeld, I. Modeling the Impact of Corporate Reputation on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Using
Partial Least Squares. In Handbook of Partial Least Squares; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 515–534. [CrossRef]
109. Fombrun, C.J. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image; Harvard University Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1996.
110. Ikhsan, R.B.; Simarmata, J. SST-Servqual and customer outcomes in service industry: Mediating the rule of corporate reputation.
Manag. Sci. Lett. 2021, 11, 561–576. [CrossRef]
111. Islam, T.; Islam, R.; Pitafi, A.H.; Xiaobei, L.; Rehmani, M.; Irfan, M.; Mubarak, M.S. The impact of corporate social responsibility
on customer loyalty: The mediating role of corporate reputation, customer satisfaction, and trust. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 25,
123–135. [CrossRef]
112. Stravinskienė, J.; Matulevičienė, M.; Hopenienė, R. Impact of Corporate Reputation Dimensions on Consumer Trust. Eng. Econ.
2021, 32, 177–192. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 2931 22 of 22

113. Saleh, M.A.; Quazi, A.; Keating, B.; Gaur, S.S. Quality and image of banking services: A comparative study of conventional and
Islamic banks. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2017, 35, 878–902. [CrossRef]
114. Nicole, S.J.; Lada, S.; Ansar, R.; Abdul Adis, A.A.; Fook, L.M.; Chekima, B. Corporate Social Responsibility and Strategic
Management: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10526. [CrossRef]
115. Chaudhary, R. Green human resource management and job pursuit intention: Examining the underlying processes. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 929–937. [CrossRef]
116. Mijoska Belsoska, M.; Trpkova-Nestorovska, M.; Trenevska Blagoeva, K. Predicting consumer intention to use mobile banking
services in north macedonia. Int. J. Multidiscip. Bus. Sci. 2020, 6, 5–12.
117. Picoto, W.N.; Pinto, I. Cultural impact on mobile banking use—A multi-method approach. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 620–628.
[CrossRef]
118. Hu, Z.; Ding, S.; Li, S.; Chen, L.; Yang, S. Adoption Intention of Fintech Services for Bank Users: An Empirical Examination with
an Extended Technology Acceptance Model. Symmetry 2019, 11, 340. [CrossRef]
119. Haleem, A.; Khan, M.I.; Khan, S. Halal certification, the inadequacy of its adoption, modelling and strategising the efforts. J.
Islam. Mark. 2019, 11, 384–404. [CrossRef]
120. Chan, E.S.W.; Okumus, F.; Chan, W. What hinders hotels’ adoption of environmental technologies: A quantitative study. Int. J.
Hosp. Manag. 2020, 84, 102324. [CrossRef]
121. Tan, M.; Teo, T. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Internet Banking. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 1, 1–44. [CrossRef]
122. Marakarkandy, B.; Yajnik, N.; Dasgupta, C. Enabling internet banking adoption. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2017, 30, 263–294.
[CrossRef]
123. Sánchez-Torres, J.A.; Sandoval, A.V.; Alzate, J.A.S. International journal of bank marketing. E-banking in Colombia: Factors
favouring its acceptance, online trust and government support. Int. J. Bank Mark. 2018, 36, 170–183. [CrossRef]
124. Maryam, S.Z.; Mehmood, M.S.; Khaliq, C.A. Factors influencing the community behavioral intention for adoption of Islamic
banking. Int. J. Islam. Middle East. Financ. Manag. 2019, 12, 586–600. [CrossRef]
125. Tabachnick, B.G.; Fidell, L.S. Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed.; Pearson/Allyn & Bacon: Boston, MA, USA, 2013.
126. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York,
NY, USA, 2016.
127. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef]
128. Hair, J.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed.; SAGE
Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2021; 384p.
129. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [CrossRef]
130. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; SAGE
Publications, Inc.: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018; 272p.
131. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [CrossRef]
132. Cohen, J. A power Primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [CrossRef]
133. Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.A.; Bala, H. Bridging the Qualitative–Quantitative Divide: Guidelines for Conducting Mixed Methods
Research In Information Systems. MIS Q. 2013, 37, 4–6. [CrossRef]
134. Venkatesh, V.; Brown, S.; Sullivan, Y. Guidelines for Conducting Mixed-methods Research: An Extension and Illustration. J. Assoc.
Inf. Syst. 2016, 17, 435–494. [CrossRef]
135. Venkatesh, V.; Zhang, X. Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology: U.S. Vs. China. J. Glob. Inf. Technol. Manag. 2010,
13, 5–27. [CrossRef]
136. Sridhar, M.; Mehta, A. The Moderating and Mediating Role of Corporate Reputation in the Link Between Service Innovation and
Cross-Buying Intention. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2018, 21, 50–70. [CrossRef]
137. Balakrishnan, J.; Foroudi, P. Does Corporate Reputation Matter? Role of Social Media in Consumer Intention to Purchase
Innovative Food Product. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2020, 23, 181–200. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.