IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i1p378-d718194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Assessment of e-Banking Websites Supporting Sustainable Development Goals

Author

Listed:
  • Witold Chmielarz

    (Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00-927 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Marek Zborowski

    (Faculty of Management, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 00-927 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

The main aim of this article was to test the authors’ proprietary method (i.e., the conversion method applied to evaluate e-banking services that support sustainable development goals in households, communities, and society). The authors’ conversion method can be applied with the aim of maintaining a balance between households, producers, and public administration services in line with the principles of sustainable development of the information society in Poland. To achieve this goal, the authors identified the differences between the results obtained using the conversion method and the results produced by other methods such as TOPSIS, Promethee II, and PROSA involving the same group of respondents. A hypothesis was made about the existence of significant differences in the results obtained as part of the studies. The research was carried out on a sample of nearly 830 ratings concerning the 27 most popular electronic banks in Poland. As part of the survey, the respondents assessed 18 characteristics (attributes) of the selected banks using a simplified Likert scale. The study was conducted during the pandemic in Poland in 2020. The authors compared the results achieved in the case of the TOPSIS, Promethee II, and PROSA methods and the ones obtained with the application of the conversion method. Then, the ratings of the e-banking websites were arranged in descending order, and the distances between the positions in the rankings obtained by the conversion method and other methods were calculated. In addition, the R2 correlation coefficients were calculated for all combinations of the results received using individual methods. The results showed the greatest differences both in the absolute distances between the positions obtained in the ranking and the lowest value of the R2 correlation coefficient in the case of the conversion method in relation to the other methods. The limitation of the present research resulted from the fact that the study sample included respondents who were all members of the academic environment. The students analyzed in the study were part of a group supporting globalization processes where e-business solutions are widely used. However, the purchases of goods and services both local and foreign made by this group were often limited in scope and value due to a lack of funds. The research results indicate a potential need for improvement of the conversion method.

Suggested Citation

  • Witold Chmielarz & Marek Zborowski, 2022. "On the Assessment of e-Banking Websites Supporting Sustainable Development Goals," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:378-:d:718194
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/1/378/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/1/378/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bill Hopwood & Mary Mellor & Geoff O'Brien, 2005. "Sustainable development: mapping different approaches," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 38-52.
    2. Rakhshanda Khan, 2016. "How Frugal Innovation Promotes Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-29, October.
    3. Joseph Nicolette & Stephanie Burr & Mark Rockel, 2013. "A Practical Approach for Demonstrating Environmental Sustainability and Stewardship through a Net Ecosystem Service Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(5), pages 1-26, May.
    4. Sabrina Neugebauer & Silvia Forin & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2016. "From Life Cycle Costing to Economic Life Cycle Assessment—Introducing an Economic Impact Pathway," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-23, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Grzegorz Ostasz & Dominika Siwiec & Andrzej Pacana, 2022. "Universal Model to Predict Expected Direction of Products Quality Improvement," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-18, February.
    2. Jaros{l}aw Wk{a}tr'obski & Aleksandra Bk{a}czkiewicz & Iga Rudawska, 2023. "A Strong Sustainability Paradigm Based Analytical Hierarchy Process (SSP-AHP) Method to Evaluate Sustainable Healthcare Systems," Papers 2306.00718, arXiv.org.
    3. Akrivi Krouska & Katerina Kabassi & Christos Troussas & Cleo Sgouropoulou, 2022. "Personalizing Environmental Awareness through Smartphones Using AHP and PROMETHEE II," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hossein Farhadikhah & Keramatollah Ziari, 2021. "Social sustainability between old and new neighborhoods (case study: Tehran neighborhoods)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 2596-2613, February.
    2. Simone Blanc & Stefano Massaglia & Filippo Brun & Cristiana Peano & Angela Mosso & Nicole Roberta Giuggioli, 2019. "Use of Bio-Based Plastics in the Fruit Supply Chain: An Integrated Approach to Assess Environmental, Economic, and Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, April.
    3. Endl, Andreas & Tost, Michael & Hitch, Michael & Moser, Peter & Feiel, Susanne, 2021. "Europe's mining innovation trends and their contribution to the sustainable development goals: Blind spots and strong points," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    4. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    5. Mario Pansera & Fabien Martinez, 2017. "Innovation for development and poverty reduction: an integrative literature review," Post-Print hal-02887777, HAL.
    6. Dawid Szostek, 2019. "The Impact of the Quality of Interpersonal Relationships between Employees on Counterproductive Work Behavior: A Study of Employees in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-33, October.
    7. Hametner, Markus, 2022. "Economics without ecology: How the SDGs fail to align socioeconomic development with environmental sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    8. Alpaslan Kelleci & Oğuz Yıldız, 2021. "A Guiding Framework for Levels of Sustainability in Marketing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    10. Bahadur Ali Soomro & Ikhtiar Ali Ghumro & Naimatullah Shah, 2020. "Green entrepreneurship inclination among the younger generation: An avenue towards a green economy," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 585-594, July.
    11. Higgins, Colin & Walker, Robyn, 2012. "Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 194-208.
    12. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    13. Shah, Sayed Kifayat & Zhongjun, Tang & Sattar, Abdul & XinHao, Zhou, 2021. "Consumer's intention to purchase 5G: Do environmental awareness, environmental knowledge and health consciousness attitude matter?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    14. Desvousges, William H. & Gard, Nicholas & Michael, Holly J. & Chance, Anne D., 2018. "Habitat and Resource Equivalency Analysis: A Critical Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 74-89.
    15. Gabriel Medina & Cassio Pereira & Joice Ferreira & Erika Berenguer & Jos Barlow, 2022. "Searching for Novel Sustainability Initiatives in Amazonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-13, August.
    16. Tukker, Arnold & Ekins, Paul, 2019. "Concepts Fostering Resource Efficiency: A Trade-off Between Ambitions and Viability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 36-45.
    17. Jean Hugé & Nibedita Mukherjee & Camille Fertel & Jean-Philippe Waaub & Thomas Block & Tom Waas & Nico Koedam & Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, 2015. "Conceptualizing the Effectiveness of Sustainability Assessment in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-17, May.
    18. Aikaterini Koumoutsea & Paraskevi Boufounou & George Mergos, 2023. "Evaluating the Creative Economy Applying the Contingent Valuation Method: A Case Study on the Greek Cultural Heritage Festival," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-19, November.
    19. Jinliu Chen & Paola Pellegrini & Haoqi Wang, 2022. "Comparative Residents’ Satisfaction Evaluation for Socially Sustainable Regeneration—The Case of Two High-Density Communities in Suzhou," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-16, September.
    20. Rachel Mazac & Hanna L. Tuomisto, 2020. "The Post-Anthropocene Diet: Navigating Future Diets for Sustainable Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:378-:d:718194. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.