Attitude Toward Plastic Money Usage: A Leap of Faith Toward Green Banking and Sustainable Development
Le résumé fourni par la source
With the advancement of technology, banking sector in Bangladesh has witnessed a dramatic shift in financial sector especially in the form of transactions. Cashless transactions, through Plastic money are growing rapidly from its inception in 1997. The purpose of this particular study is to unearth the moderating influence of the perceptions about the plastic money (Perceived advantages, Perceived disadvantages, Psychological factors) on the perceived future growth of plastic money market of Bangladesh. This study used 159 replies, with a response rate of 78 percent, which was collected through a self-administered survey using Mall intercept technique, judgmental technique and snowball technique. The results, derived from Step-wise multiple linear regression analysis by the usage of AMOS 2O showed that perceived advantages, perceived disadvantages and psychological factors-all three significantly modify customers’ attitude toward growth. Moreover, the study attempts to link how the growth of plastic money market leads to green banking practices, which in turn will accelerate sustainable development. Plastic money marketers (Banks and Financial institutions) will have a great implication from this study regarding how to utilize the growth potential and become a sustainable development agent. Keywords: Plastic Money, Green Banking, Sustainable Development, Growth DOI: 10.7176/EJBM/13-18-06 Publication date: September 30 th 2021
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Attitude Toward Plastic Money Usage: A Leap of Faith Toward Green Banking and Sustainable Development
- Date Crossref
- 01/09/2021
- Éditeur
- International Institute for Science, Technology and Education
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.