Overcoming Barriers to Green Banking Adoption: Insights from Innovation Resistance Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many companies utilize buildings and banknotes, impacting environmental concerns.Green banking technology, which facilitates online transactions to minimize environmental impact, has not been universally adopted.This study investigates resistance among green banking technology users.Online questionnaires were distributed to 225 users in Indonesia.The data were analyzed using the partial least squares with descriptive analysis regarding the functional and psychological barriers.Functional barriers show obstacles that arise when the function of green banking does not meet the user's ideal expectations.Meanwhile, psychological barriers refer to psychological and practical barriers such as tradition, image, values, and risks.The results show that green banking users have a lower functional barrier role than psychological barriers.Users see from the value side GBT compared to the psychological side, such as images and habits.Users prioritize features and functions over habitual factors.Thus, the findings of this study contribute to our understanding of the factors influencing the adoption of green business practices through green banking technology.This study also recommends that banks optimize their features and functions to encourage users to adopt banking products that support green businesses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".