Next Article in Journal
State-of-the-Art and Practice Review in Concrete Sandwich Wall Panels: Materials, Design, and Construction Methods
Previous Article in Journal
Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Model to Unlock Sustainable Heritage Tourism Potential
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083701
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Green FinTech: A Consumer Awareness Study

by
Anna Iwona Piotrowska
1 and
Dariusz Piotrowski
2,*
1
Department of Digital Economy and Finance, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, 87-100 Toruń, Poland
2
Department of Financial Management, Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, 87-100 Toruń, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3701; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083701
Submission received: 14 March 2025 / Revised: 15 April 2025 / Accepted: 17 April 2025 / Published: 19 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Environmental protection is a core component of the sustainable business practices of financial institutions. Previous research on green FinTech mainly relies on gas and dust emissions data to show its environmental impact, while consumer assessments of FinTech’s contribution to sustainability are rarely explored. This study aims to investigate the level of consumer awareness regarding the environmental impact of FinTech companies and to identify cross-country differences in these assessments. The empirical data were obtained from a survey conducted in mid-2023, involving 2000 respondents from the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. This study employs descriptive statistics and selected statistical tests, which enabled the identification of two main findings. Firstly, the survey results reveal a generally low level of awareness of the green activities undertaken by FinTech companies across all four countries. Secondly, statistically significant differences were found in the assessment of the environmental impact of FinTech companies, with respondents from the United Kingdom and Poland being the most likely to perceive this impact as positive. Due to the benefits of sustainable development for both society and the environment, it is essential that the FinTech sector intensifies its pro-environmental efforts. The findings also highlight the need for FinTech companies to enhance communication regarding their environmental sustainability initiatives.

1. Introduction

The adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) was the international community’s response to the recent intensification of phenomena negatively affecting the quality of life on our planet [1]. Many of the challenges currently faced are directly or indirectly related to the deterioration of the natural environment, hence the calls for action to combat climate change and its effects (SDG 13) and to promote the sustainable use of aquatic (SDG 14) and terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15). The impact of environmental deterioration is also evident in the substance and content of the SDGs relating to poverty reduction, hunger reduction, access to clean water, and greater use of renewable energy [2].
Financial institutions have an important role in reducing the negative effects of human activity on the environment by, for example, financing environmentally friendly projects, imposing restrictions on financing for environmentally harmful projects, conducting financing operations in the least environmentally burdensome manner, and promoting environmentally friendly behaviours by corporations and individuals [3,4,5,6,7]. The prevailing view in the literature is that the importance of financial institutions in achieving the SDGs, including environmental goals, has increased in recent years due to the technological progress made in this sector [8,9,10,11].
The implementation of digital technologies in finance to improve the efficiency of financial services provision is referred to as FinTech [12]. Knewtson and Rosenbaum [13] define FinTech as “technology used to provide financial markets a financial product or financial service, characterised by sophisticated technology relative to existing technology in that market”. The term is used to refer to the application of digital technologies like artificial intelligence, big data, and cloud computing in the financial industry [14]. FinTech changes existing financial practices and generates new business models, processes, and products [15,16]. FinTech can also be defined by emphasising the type of entity providing financial services. For example, Schueffel [17] refers to FinTech as “a new financial industry that applies technology to improve financial activities”, and Harasim [12] defines it as “the sector created by non-traditional providers of financial services, using innovative technologies to more effectively provide existing services and/or create new ones, which enables the delivery of new value to customers”.
This study concerns the environmental impact of digital technologies used in finance, which, in the literature, is referred to as green FinTech [18,19,20]. The existing research achievements presented in the following parts were classified in terms of the type of FinTech definition used (advanced digital technologies used in finance versus innovative non-banking financial institutions) and the approach to the analysis of the impact of FinTech on the environment (descriptive methods versus the use of empirical data).
In studies concerning the environmental impact of FinTech, statistics on gas and dust emissions, energy consumption, and the production of energy from renewable sources are more commonly employed, while the term FinTech usually refers to digital technologies used in finance [8,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. According to Liu and Li [28], Liu et al. [29], Dorfleitner and Braun [30], and Xue et al. [31], the development of FinTech facilitates access to financing and contributes to the wider use of green technologies. In turn, green innovation supports environmental sustainability [32,33]. Zheng and Siddik [34] find that the implementation of FinTech solutions by financial institutions has a positive impact on the use of green finance, green innovation, and environmental performance. Liu and You [35] consider green credit development and confirm that FinTech has a positive impact on the environment by reducing information asymmetry and increasing the efficiency of green credit allocation.
In subsequent analysed works, statistical data on greenhouse gas and dust emissions were also used, but FinTech was understood as an innovative institution of the financial sector. Deng et al. [20] use the number of peer-to-peer platforms operating on the Chinese market as a measure of FinTech. Jiang [14], Liu and You [35], Huang and Ma [36], and Firdousi et al. [37] apply the number of FinTech startups and FinTech-related businesses operating in a particular region, and Vo et al. [38] use data on the value of FinTech credit from the Bank for International Settlements database to represent FinTech. In turn, Tu [39] represents FinTech using revenue data from the FinTech market in the Statista database.
Studies on the impact of FinTech on the environment also draw on the reports of financial institutions and the opinions and assessments of survey respondents. Puschmann et al. [40] offer a detailed discussion of the service offerings of green FinTech companies. In Ashta [41], the environmental impact of FinTech is assessed by comparing carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of FinTech companies operating internationally (PayPal, Mastercard, Ant Group) and green FinTech companies operating more locally (Cooler Future, Joro, CO2X). Delina [42] surveys experts representing the energy, digital technologies, and finance sectors regarding the possibility of using blockchain technology in the area of renewable energy supply. Aboalsamh et al. [43] draw on respondents’ experiences in green FinTech programmes and show that using digital technologies increases access to finance and motivates consumers to adopt sustainable consumption and investment. The benefits of digital technology in finance have also been recognised by bank employees in Taiwan [44], Bangladesh [34,45], and Pakistan [46]. Zhao and Abeysekera [47] find that users see the Alipay Ant Forest platform as supporting environmentally friendly behaviour.
The literature suggests that the positive environmental effect of FinTech can be achieved in two ways. The first is by reducing environmental nuisances associated with the operation of financial institutions. This approach emphasises resource conservation and efficiency in financial institutions [48,49,50]. The second effect relates to customers’ use of green FinTech products, including digital accounts, payments, deposits and loans, and green digital investment and insurance solutions [51]. Here, the emphasis is on improving environmental performance through pro-ecological investments and changing consumer behaviour and attitudes [52,53].
The literature review conducted confirms the observations of Liu et al. [18], Liu, Zhang and Kuang [29], Galeone et al. [54], Kwong et al. [55], and Xu et al. [56] that green FinTech is relatively new and remains an insufficiently explored research area. It also identified a shortage of studies assessing FinTech service offerings from the consumer perspective. In particular, there is a lack of research findings on the awareness of FinTech companies’ green activities. Although this issue is regarded as a highly valuable trait in today’s society, existing research on sustainable practices in the field of finance has primarily focused on banks and links green awareness to individuals’ knowledge of green banking practices [57,58,59]. This work addresses the identified research gap and provides empirical evidence pointing to the need to strengthen the message regarding the green efforts of FinTechs.
For the purposes of this study, we define green FinTech as innovative non-bank financial institutions that use advanced digital technologies with the intention of having a beneficial impact on the environment. This study aims to investigate the level of consumer awareness regarding the environmental impact of FinTech companies and to identify differences in their assessments across countries. Our work contributes to the literature in several ways. Firstly, obtaining data in consumer research. The literature review indicated that studies in the area of green FinTech most often rely on statistical data concerning the use of a selected digital service and the volume of gas and dust emissions. Our survey is one of the few that provides insight into the level of consumer awareness and assessment regarding the environmental impact of services provided by FinTech entities. Secondly, the coverage of FinTech entities in the study. Despite the growth in market position and the increasing worldwide use of FinTech companies’ service offerings by consumers, the environmental activities of these players are not accompanied by in-depth research. In the previous works in the field of green FinTech, the dominant understanding of FinTech is as an innovative digital technology used in finance. Thirdly, a broad scope of analysis. In contrast to the few studies to date that have looked at a selected aspect of a specific financial service, this study examines various aspects of the activities of FinTech companies that may have an impact on the environment. Unique data in this regard were obtained from the author’s original survey. Fourthly, the different and geographically diverse areas of analysis. Previous studies in the field of green FinTech have usually focused on selected regions of China. This study uses the results of a survey of mobile or Internet banking users in the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland, and Ukraine. Obtaining data from respondents representing four European markets provided the opportunity for cross-country comparisons. Fifthly, a broad respondent base. An in-depth review of the literature identified only one study in which respondents assessed the environmental impact of services provided by a FinTech company. Unlike the aforementioned study, which involved 30 participants [47], the survey conducted for the purposes of this paper included 2000 respondents. Sixthly, a significant contribution to the ongoing discussion on green FinTech. This paper does not determine the environmental impact of FinTech but focuses on the issue of consumer awareness and assessments of this impact. The results of the study present a much more pessimistic view regarding the beneficial impact of FinTech on the environment than previous studies have suggested.
The paper poses the following research questions:
  • RQ1: To what extent are consumers aware of the environmental aspects of FinTech companies’ activities?
  • RQ2: What is the impact of using financial applications on the awareness and assessment of pro-ecological activities of FinTech companies?
  • RQ3: Are there significant differences across the countries analysed in their assessment of green FinTech?
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we present the method by which data were obtained and analysed. In Section 3, we set out the results, and in Section 4, we discuss consumer awareness of FinTech services. The paper ends with the conclusions and recommendations for FinTech managers.

2. Materials and Methods

The data analysed in this study were obtained in a survey conducted between 12 June and 18 July 2023, using computer-assisted web interviews (CAWI). The survey, based on a questionnaire prepared by the authors, was conducted by the professional research agency Interactive Research Center and included 2000 respondents (500 each from Ukraine, Poland, Germany, and the United Kingdom) aged 21 to 60 who were active users of mobile or Internet banking. The application of these criteria aimed to ensure that the survey covered only adults with experience in using digital technologies in finance. This approach ultimately contributed to an improvement in the quality of the data collected.
The use of the CAWI method made it possible to reach advanced users of digital technologies and to conduct the study consistently across four countries, ensuring identical measurement conditions and questionnaire content. It also enabled the collection of a large volume of responses within a short period of time, which was particularly important due to the geographical diversity of the study. This method does not require the presence of an interviewer, which not only increases respondent comfort but also allows for the implementation of the survey in a country affected by armed conflict. The selection of the four countries aimed to obtain a diverse research sample. Each country is characterised by varying levels of environmental awareness among its population, as well as differing stages of development in the technology and financial sectors. This provides a unique opportunity for cross-country comparisons.
The respondents were participants in research panels. They provided their consent electronically to participate in the survey. In each country, respondent selection was controlled by age, gender, and place of residence to obtain representative samples. The questionnaire included filters related to basic demographic data and the technological proficiency of the participants. Individuals who did not meet the selection criteria were screened out and did not proceed with the survey. The main survey was preceded by a pilot study. The basic characteristics of the respondents are presented in Table 1.
The electronic questionnaire had a dedicated language version for each country group of respondents. Each one was checked by at least two native speakers to ensure an identical understanding of the questions in each country. For most questions, respondents answered using a seven-point Likert scale, which is more accurate than the standard five-point Likert scale and is recommended for electronic surveys [60]. All respondents participated in the study voluntarily and could withdraw their participation at any time. The dataset was collected anonymously.
The high quality of the data obtained and adherence to ethical principles in the implementation of survey research should be associated with the agency’s actual adherence to the International Code of Market, Opinion and Social Research and Data Analysis ICC/ESOMAR. The study concept and the survey questionnaire were approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (decision no 10/2023/FT).
Our questions are general in nature in that they are not linked to a specific FinTech entity or to a particular type of financial service with an environmental component. At the same time, the questions covered the widest possible range of environmental impacts of FinTech companies (Table 2). An introduction to FinTech was provided to improve the quality of survey responses. Respondents were informed that FinTech companies are innovative institutions that use advanced digital technologies to provide financial services, including support in choosing a financial product, investment advice, and household budget planning. Examples of FinTech companies operating in the countries surveyed were also provided.
The empirical analysis of the research material is conducted in two stages. First, we calculate descriptive statistics to determine the level of awareness of green FinTech among respondents. The analysis was conducted for all respondents participating in the survey, and for a group of FinTech company app users. In the second stage, we apply statistical tests to identify significant differences in the responses provided by respondents from different countries. We use the Kruskal–Wallis test, which allows for comparisons across multiple groups based on responses measured using a seven-point Likert scale (an ordinal variable). Where statistically significant differences are observed, we perform Dunn’s post-hoc test (the appropriate procedure following a Kruskal–Wallis test) to identify specific pairs of countries that differ significantly. Next, we analyse a scale composed of five items presented to respondents. To assess the reliability of this scale, we calculate Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. We then compare the mean scores across the countries using parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA). Despite the absence of normality, this is justified by the equal group sizes and the large number of respondents in each group. Due to the violation of the homogeneity of variances assumption, we apply Welch’s correction. Where statistically significant differences are found, we use Tamhane’s post-hoc test to identify the specific country pairs that differ. Our analysis includes each of the five variables set out in Table 2 and for the synthetic variable “Green FinTech awareness”, which is the sum of the ranks of the five variables analysed. All statistical analyses were performed in PS IMAGO PRO 10 based on the IBM SPSS Statistics 29 analytical engine.

3. Results

In the first stage, the survey data are analysed to determine respondents’ awareness of green FinTech. The respondents’ answers regarding the environmental aspects of the activities and services provided by FinTech companies are presented in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7. Due to the complexity of the reported data, this form of presentation provides clarity and transparency for the audience.
Table 3 shows respondents’ assessments of the potential for FinTech companies to reduce the negative environmental impact by using digital technologies in their operations. Our analysis of the survey results indicates that, for all countries, positive responses (“somewhat agree”, “agree”, and “strongly agree”) prevail over negative responses (“somewhat disagree”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”). In addition to all respondents, the prevalence of positive responses over negative ones is also found for those with experience of using FinTech applications.
Table 3. Distribution: Digital technologies impact (in %).
Table 3. Distribution: Digital technologies impact (in %).
UkrainePolandGermanyUnited Kingdom
All
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech Users
Strongly disagree1.600.741.400.982.201.203.002.54
Disagree2.803.692.602.296.605.624.004.44
Somewhat disagree7.808.497.006.5413.4013.257.609.84
It is hard to say47.0043.5446.4041.5045.6039.7646.4037.78
Somewhat agree29.4029.5224.2026.4722.0024.5018.4019.68
Agree10.2012.5513.6016.678.2012.8513.0014.29
Strongly agree1.201.484.805.562.002.817.6011.43
Note: Results may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The number and percentage of FinTech users in Ukraine (271; 54.2%), in Poland (306; 61.2%), in Germany (249; 49.8%), and in United Kingdom (315; 63.0%). Source: Authors’ own calculations.
The question presented in Table 3 concerns the institutional perspective, specifically applied business solutions. The next question addresses the beneficial environmental impact of the use of FinTech companies’ services. Table 4, thus, refers to the expected effects of actions taken by consumers. For all respondents, positive assessments prevail over negative ones; in the case of Poland, this difference amounts to 30 percentage points, while in Germany, it is only 8 percentage points. Considering only FinTech app users, the highest percentage of positive responses was recorded for respondents from Poland, while the highest percentage of responses denying the statement about the beneficial environmental impact of using FinTech apps was recorded for respondents from Germany.
Table 4. Distribution: FinTech applications (in %).
Table 4. Distribution: FinTech applications (in %).
UkrainePolandGermanyUnited Kingdom
All
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech Users
Strongly disagree2.201.482.602.293.402.412.802.22
Disagree4.405.542.801.966.807.232.802.54
Somewhat disagree7.206.645.806.2114.2010.849.2010.48
It is hard to say49.2042.4446.6038.5644.4036.5545.6037.14
Somewhat agree24.4028.0424.0028.7619.6025.3020.0022.86
Agree10.6013.2813.8016.999.6014.4613.0015.56
Strongly agree2.002.584.405.232.003.216.609.21
Note: Results may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The number and percentage of FinTech users in Ukraine (271; 54.2%), in Poland (306; 61.2%), in Germany (249; 49.8%), and in United Kingdom (315; 63.0%). Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Table 5 presents respondents’ answers regarding the environmental disclosure policy of FinTech companies concerning the environmental impact of their financial services. In this case, as above, the total affirmative responses exceed the total negative responses, both for all respondents and for FinTech app users. However, it is worth noting that the highest percentage of responses in all countries correspond to the “it is hard to say” option.
Table 5. Distribution: Disclosure policy (in %).
Table 5. Distribution: Disclosure policy (in %).
UkrainePolandGermanyUnited Kingdom
All
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech Users
Strongly disagree1.600.742.401.962.602.012.401.90
Disagree5.406.643.604.255.604.825.005.40
Somewhat disagree17.6018.086.406.2117.6017.679.4011.75
It is hard to say46.4039.8550.2043.7940.6037.7549.4043.17
Somewhat agree21.2025.0921.0022.8822.0020.4814.8014.29
Agree7.208.4912.6016.679.8014.8612.0013.33
Strongly agree0.601.113.804.251.802.417.0010.16
Note: Results may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The number and percentage of FinTech users in Ukraine (271; 54.2%), in Poland (306; 61.2%), in Germany (249; 49.8%), and in United Kingdom (315; 63.0%). Source: Authors’ own calculations.
The next question assesses the level of awareness of eco-friendly financial services offered by FinTech companies. The question includes examples such as loans for financing environmentally friendly expenditures, like purchasing a heat pump or photovoltaic installation. In this case, the highest percentage of responses is also for the “it is hard to say” option, followed by positive responses, with “somewhat agree” being the most prevalent. Negative responses have the lowest share, with “somewhat disagree” being the dominant option (Table 6).
Table 6. Distribution: Green project financing (in %).
Table 6. Distribution: Green project financing (in %).
UkrainePolandGermanyUnited Kingdom
All
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech Users
Strongly disagree1.400.372.201.631.601.202.201.90
Disagree2.402.211.801.634.403.213.003.81
Somewhat disagree6.006.645.807.1911.8012.457.007.94
It is hard to say56.4054.6148.6040.5247.8040.9649.8041.27
Somewhat agree23.8023.9925.6029.7421.2022.0918.0018.41
Agree8.6010.3311.2014.0510.0016.0613.8017.14
Strongly agree1.401.854.805.233.204.026.209.52
Note: Results may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The number and percentage of FinTech users in Ukraine (271; 54.2%), in Poland (306; 61.2%), in Germany (249; 49.8%), and in United Kingdom (315; 63.0%). Source: Authors’ own calculations.
The last question is the widest in scope, as it addresses how FinTech companies conduct business and offer services. The responses provide insight into respondents’ views on the environmental impact of FinTech companies. As Table 7 indicates, depending on the country, positive responses outweigh negative ones, either substantially (Poland: 44% versus 9%) or to a limited extent (Germany: 34% versus 22%).
Table 7. Distribution: Environmentally friendly FinTech (in %).
Table 7. Distribution: Environmentally friendly FinTech (in %).
UkrainePolandGermanyUnited Kingdom
All
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech UsersAll
Respondents		FinTech Users
Strongly disagree1.001.111.401.312.802.812.602.54
Disagree2.602.211.601.315.403.614.604.76
Somewhat disagree9.408.126.005.8814.4014.067.608.57
It is hard to say52.4047.2346.8040.8543.4038.5547.0040.00
Somewhat agree26.2031.0029.8033.0123.0024.5017.4018.41
Agree7.408.8610.0013.409.2014.4613.8015.87
Strongly agree1.001.484.404.251.802.017.009.84
Note: Results may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The number and percentage of FinTech users in Ukraine (271; 54.2%), in Poland (306; 61.2%), in Germany (249; 49.8%) and in United Kingdom (315; 63.0%). Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Summarising the results of the first part of the analysis, it can be concluded that for each of the five variables and for each of the countries analysed, the responses of all respondents indicating the presence of a positive environmental impact of the operation and service offer of FinTech companies outweighed the answers denying such a statement. However, when comparing the responses of all respondents and FinTech users, a moderate decrease in the share of responses from the middle of the scale—“it is hard to say”—and a corresponding increase in the share of positive responses can be observed. At this point it is important to note that, despite the decrease in the percentage share of the “it is hard to say” option among FinTech users compared to respondents as a whole, the “hard to say” option was still the dominant and median of the responses for each question analysed and for each country, including in this narrower group of respondents (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7).
In the second part of the study, we test for statistically significant differences between countries (Ukraine, Poland, Germany, and the UK) in the distribution of respondents’ answers. The Kruskal–Wallis test shows significant differences between countries for each variable (Table 8).
In the next step, we test the differences between pairs of countries using Dunn’s test. The results of the post-hoc analysis for individual variables are presented in Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, Table 12 and Table 13.
Regarding whether the use of digital technologies by FinTech companies reduces their negative impact on the natural environment, Dunn’s test shows statistically significant differences in responses between pairs of countries as follows: Germany–Ukraine, Germany–Poland, and Germany–UK, with a significance level < 0.05 (Table 9).
Table 9. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “Digital Technologies Impact”.
Table 9. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “Digital Technologies Impact”.
Std. Test StatisticSignificanceAdj. Significance a
Germany–Ukraine−3.620<0.0010.002
Germany–United Kingdom−3.958<0.0010.000
Germany–Poland−5.064<0.0010.000
Ukraine–United Kingdom−0.3380.7361.000
Ukraine–Poland−1.4440.1490.892
United Kingdom–Poland−1.1060.2691.000
Note: Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same. Asymptotic significances (two-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values are adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Regarding whether the use of financial applications from FinTech companies contributes to reducing consumer’s negative environmental impact, Dunn’s test indicated statistically significant differences in responses between the following pairs: Germany–Ukraine, Germany–Poland, and Germany–UK, at a significance level of <0.05 (Table 10).
Table 10. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “FinTech Applications”.
Table 10. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “FinTech Applications”.
Std. Test StatisticSignificanceAdj. Significance a
Germany–Ukraine−3.1280.0020.011
Germany–United Kingdom−4.405<0.0010.000
Germany–Poland−5.279<0.0010.000
Ukraine–United Kingdom−1.2770.2021.000
Ukraine–Poland−2.1510.0310.189
United Kingdom–Poland−0.8740.3821.000
Note: Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same. Asymptotic significances (two-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values are adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
In relation to the question of whether FinTech companies inform their customers about the environmental impact of their services, Dunn’s test indicates statistically significant differences between the following pairs, Ukraine–Poland, Germany–Poland, and Ukraine–UK, at a significance level of <0.05 (Table 11).
Table 11. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “Disclosure Policy”.
Table 11. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “Disclosure Policy”.
Std. Test StatisticSignificanceAdj. Significance a
Ukraine–Germany−0.9790.3281.000
Ukraine–United Kingdom −3.472<0.0010.003
Ukraine–Poland −4.643<0.0010.000
Germany–United Kingdom−2.4930.0130.076
Germany–Poland−3.664<0.0010.001
United Kingdom–Poland−1.1710.2421.000
Note: Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same. Asymptotic significances (two-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values are adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
The responses to the question of whether FinTech companies support customers in financing projects aimed at protecting the natural environment (providing loans for green purposes) are assessed using Dunn’s test, with statistically significant differences identified for only one pair of countries, Germany–Poland, at a significance level of <0.05 (Table 12).
Table 12. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Test Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “Green Project Financing”.
Table 12. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Test Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “Green Project Financing”.
Std. Test StatisticSignificanceAdj. Significance a
Germany–Ukraine−0.9300.3521.000
Germany–United Kingdom −2.5530.0110.064
Germany–Poland −3.327<0.0010.005
Ukraine–United Kingdom−1.6230.1050.628
Ukraine–Poland−2.3970.0170.099
United Kingdom–Poland−0.7740.4391.000
Note: Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same. Asymptotic significances (two-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values are adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
With regard to the question of whether FinTech companies operating in Ukraine, Poland, Germany, and the UK provide services that take the natural environment into account, Dunn’s test indicates statistically significant differences between the following country pairs, Ukraine–Poland, Germany–Poland and Germany–UK, at a significance level of <0.05 (Table 13).
Table 13. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Test Results for Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “Environmentally Friendly FinTech”.
Table 13. Dunn’s Post-Hoc Test Results for Pairwise Country Comparisons of the Distribution of “Environmentally Friendly FinTech”.
Std. Test StatisticSignificanceAdj. Significance a
Germany–Ukraine−1.6280.1030.621
Germany–United Kingdom −3.399<0.0010.004
Germany–Poland −5.049<0.0010.000
Ukraine–United Kingdom−1.7710.0770.459
Ukraine–Poland−3.421<0.0010.004
United Kingdom–Poland−1.6500.0990.594
Note: Each row tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are the same. Asymptotic significances (two-sided tests) are displayed. The significance level is 0.050. a Significance values are adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for multiple tests. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Differences between countries in the overall awareness of green FinTech are examined by using the five variables presented in Table 2 to construct the synthetic variable “Green FinTech awareness”, the descriptive statistics of which are presented in Table 14. The reliability of the variable scale is assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (Table 15). The reliability test demonstrates satisfactory results for the value higher or close to 0.70 [61]. The coefficient value of 0.901 indicates a high level of consistency in responses.
We use ANOVA to determine whether the cross-country differences in the responses given for the “Green FinTech awareness” variable are statistically significant. We use a parametric test because of the large size of each country group and the lack of extreme outlying observations. Due to the lack of homogeneity of variance, the ANOVA with Welch’s correction is employed (Table 16).
The results of Welch’s ANOVA indicate significant differences in Green FinTech awareness between countries (Table 16). The post-hoc analysis (presented in Table 17), using Tamhane’s test with correction for multiple comparisons, shows differences in responses between pairs of countries: Ukraine–Poland, Germany–Poland, and Germany–UK. The score for Poland is higher than that for Ukraine and Germany, and the UK score is higher than that for Germany.

4. Discussion

This study on FinTech companies and their services has explored the perspective of a relatively large sample of users of internet and mobile banking services from several European countries. Due to the lack of existing consumer surveys regarding the environmental impact of FinTech companies, it is not possible to refer directly to previous results. In contrast to work focusing on single FinTech entities and their services [62,63], the issues here are of a more general nature, although there are multiple aspects to consider. Moreover, the phenomenon of green awareness discussed in this study has so far been analysed primarily in relation to banks and typically focused on identifying its determinants [57,58,59], rather than on measuring the actual level of consumer knowledge in this area. Furthermore, no previous research has presented findings based on respondents from multiple countries, nor has it highlighted cross-national differences in the level of green awareness.
The greatest value of the study is the findings, which demonstrate the uncertainty of respondents in assessing the positive impact of FinTech companies on the environment. Depending on the issue analysed and the respondent’s country of origin, the “it is hard to say” response was provided most often, accounting for 41% to 56% of all the answers provided. Furthermore, considering the answers “somewhat disagree” and “somewhat agree” responses, the percentage of undecided respondents in their assessments is at a high level of 72–87%. A slightly lower but still high level of responses indicating a lack of knowledge or belief among respondents that FinTech companies are green was also found among application users.
Relating the present results to the content of RQ1 and RQ2, we conclude that there is a very low degree of awareness of the actions undertaken by FinTech companies in the field of environmental sustainability. We found that the use of FinTech services only slightly increases the level of awareness in the study area. Furthermore, we also showed that, among respondents able to express their own assessment, a higher percentage perceive a beneficial impact of FinTech companies on the environment than disagree with such a statement. The results obtained in the present study are only partially consistent with the findings of previous studies concerning the banking sector in Pakistan [57] and in Brazil [58]. In the case of Pakistan, a relatively high proportion of respondents (31.8%) expressed uncertainty regarding their awareness of green practices undertaken by banks. In Brazil, this proportion was even higher, reaching 37%. In both studies, there was a significant predominance of responses denying knowledge over those confirming awareness of green practices being followed by the respondents’ banks. In the study on the banking sector in Pakistan, this ratio was 54.8% to 13.6%, while in the case of Brazil, it was 53.6% to 9.4%.
This study indicates that there are statistically significant differences between respondents from different countries in their rating of the environmental performance of FinTech companies, both for individual variables and for the synthetic composite variable. Thus, RQ3 is answered in the affirmative. We identified statistically significant differences between the following pairs of countries: Ukraine–Poland, Germany–Poland, and Germany–UK. This result can be linked to the different levels of financial market development in the analysed countries, the openness of societies to the use of modern digital technologies, and awareness of sustainable development.
The less positive environmental assessments of FinTech companies’ operations recorded for Ukraine than for Poland are linked to the former’s less developed financial market, in particular with respect to innovative technologies in finance [64,65] and difficulties in SDG implementation. This results from, among other factors, the low level of activity of companies and individuals in the area of renewable energy and ecology, the lack of support for green initiatives from local and state authorities [66], and significant inequality between urban and rural residents [67], which is compounded by the problems resulting from Russian aggression in Ukraine.
In three countries, Poland, Germany, and the United Kingdom, there are certain similarities: the highly developed financial markets and issues related to sustainable development are raised in the public debate [68]. Financial institutions from these countries also have many years of experience in green financing. In this situation, the statistically significant lower ratings by German respondents (compared to Polish and the United Kingdom respondents) on the issue of green FinTech can be linked to the German public being less open to modern digital solutions in finance than the Polish and the United Kingdom public [69]. The second factor is paradoxically related to the very high level of environmental awareness in German society. Germany exhibits greater awareness of climate change than Poland and the United Kingdom [70], strong public support for transforming the economy towards clean energy production [71], and pressure for a more effective and stringent climate policy [72]. Germany made the decision to completely switch from coal and nuclear power to renewable energy sources [73,74]. As a result, lower green FinTech ratings may result from higher expectations of environmental effects, as well as being more critical when assessing the beneficial environmental impact of FinTech companies and their digital solutions.

5. Conclusions

The increasing use of digital technologies in finance forms the basis for the emergence and development of innovative non-bank FinTech companies. These institutions have the potential to positively impact the environment, both through the way they conduct business, the services they offer, and their ability to influence society. The effectiveness of achieving sustainable development goals, particularly in promoting pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes among individuals, largely depends on whether consumers are aware of the existence of green FinTech. The survey conducted for this study, along with the statistical and econometric analyses used, aimed to assess the level of respondents’ knowledge regarding the environmental impact of FinTech.
The present study clearly shows that respondents from the countries analysed are largely unaware of the environmental impact of the use of digital technologies and the financial services provided by FinTech companies. It can, therefore, be concluded that, for the vast majority of the public, the FinTech sector is not green or insufficiently green. The reason for this state of affairs could be the limited scale of pro-ecological activity by FinTech companies or inadequate communication to consumers about their initiatives in this area.
The findings of the present study highlight the urgent need to improve the effectiveness of FinTech companies’ information policy on pro-environmental activities. These are important insights, especially for achieving the SDGs. FinTech companies, as increasingly active participants in the international financial market, can have a positive impact on the environment by offering financial products that support green projects and by shaping environmentally friendly consumer attitudes and behaviour. It should also be noted that emphasising pro-ecological activities is a desirable course of action for the future of humanity and the planet and for the business of FinTech companies.
The present study offers the first understanding of the views of European digital finance users regarding green FinTech. However, it would be worth extending the study to developed FinTech markets such as the United States and China to determine whether the problems encountered by FinTech companies in communicating with users are widespread or limited to the European market. Future research should also address the determinants of the perception of FinTech companies as green. Gaining insights into the significance of these factors will enable a more professional approach to shaping the image of FinTech as pro-environmental institutions.
The literature to date has indicated that FinTech has a positive impact on the environment. However, the results of the present study indicate a lack of awareness among respondents regarding FinTech companies’ beneficial environmental impact and a slight predominance of positive over negative assessments in this regard. Explaining the reported discrepancies in the environmental impact of green FinTech is, thus, an important direction for future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.I.P. and D.P.; methodology, A.I.P. and D.P.; formal analysis, A.I.P. and D.P.; investigation, A.I.P. and D.P.; resources, A.I.P. and D.P.; data curation, A.I.P. and D.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.P. and D.P.; writing—review and editing, A.I.P. and D.P.; supervision, A.I.P. and D.P.; project administration, A.I.P. and D.P.; funding acquisition, A.I.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń under “Excellence Initiative—Research University” programme for 2020–2026.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Economic Sciences and Management at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń (decision no 10/2023/FT).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

All data files are available from the RepoOD database (https://doi.org/10.18150/CSYNF7).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Natalia Soja-Kukieła for her support and constructive comments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Brock, R.C.; Balfour, N.; Brown, C.; Burgess, N.D.; Guth, M.K.; Ingram, D.J.; Lane, R.; Martin, J.G.C.; Wicander, S.; et al. Towards understanding interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: The role of environment–human linkages. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1573–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mishra, M.; Desul, S.; Santos, C.A.G.; Mishra, S.K.; Kamal, A.H.M.; Goswami, S.; Kalumba, A.M.; Biswal, R.; da Silva, R.M.; Costa dos Santos, C.A.; et al. A bibliometric analysis of sustainable development goals (SDGs): A review of progress, challenges, and opportunities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 11101–11143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Oanh, T.T.K. Sustainable development: Driving force from the relationship between finance inclusion, green finance and green growth. Sustain. Dev. 2024, 32, 2811–2829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bakry, W.; Mallik, G.; Nghiem, X.-H.; Sinha, A.; Vo, X.V. Is green finance really “green”? Examining the long-run relationship between green finance, renewable energy and environmental performance in developing countries. Renew. Energy 2023, 208, 341–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Saeed Meo, M.; Karim, M.Z.A. The role of green finance in reducing CO2 emissions: An empirical analysis. Borsa Istanb. Rev. 2022, 22, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. European Banking Federation (EBF). Towards a Green Finance Framework. 2017. Available online: https://www.ebf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Geen-finance-complete.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2025).
  7. Chen, J.; Siddik, A.B.; Zheng, G.-W.; Masukujjaman, M.; Bekhzod, S. The Effect of Green Banking Practices on Banks’ Environmental Performance and Green Financing: An Empirical Study. Energies 2022, 15, 1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kashif, M.; Pinglu, C.; Ullah, S.; Zaman, M. Evaluating the influence of financial technology (FinTech) on sustainable finance: A comprehensive global analysis. Financ. Mark. Portf. Manag. 2024, 38, 123–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mertzanis, C. FinTech finance and social-environmental performance around the world. Financ. Res. Lett. 2023, 56, 104107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Carè, R.; Boitan, I.A.; Fatima, R. How do FinTech companies contribute to the achievement of SDGs? Insights from case studies. Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2023, 66, 102072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Arner, D.W.; Buckley, R.P.; Zetzsche, D.A.; Veidt, R. Sustainability, FinTech and Financial Inclusion. Eur. Bus. Organ. Law Rev. 2020, 21, 7–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Harasim, J. FinTechs, BigTechs and structural changes in capital markets. In The Digitalization of Financial Markets: The Socioeconomic Impact of Financial Technologies; Marszk, A., Lechman, E., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 81–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Knewtson, H.S.; Rosenbaum, Z.A. Toward understanding FinTech and its industry. Manag. Financ. 2020, 46, 1043–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jiang, B. Does fintech promote the sustainable development of renewable energy enterprises? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 65141–65148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Financial Stability Board. Financial Stability Implications from Fintech: Supervisory and Regulatory Issues that Merit Authorities’ Attention. 2017. Available online: https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/R270617.pdf (accessed on 16 September 2024).
  16. Lai, K.P.Y.; Samers, M. Towards an economic geography of FinTech. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2021, 45, 720–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schueffel, P. Taming the beast: A scientific definition of fintech. J. Innov. Manag. 2016, 4, 32–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, H.; Chau, K.Y.; Duong, N.T.; Hoang, N.-K. Fintech, financial inclusion, mineral resources and environmental quality. An economic advancement perspective from China and Vietnam. Resour. Policy 2024, 89, 104636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Macchiavello, E.; Siri, M. Sustainable Finance and Fintech: Can Technology Contribute to Achieving Environmental Goals? A Preliminary Assessment of ‘Green Fintech’ and ‘Sustainable Digital Finance’. Eur. Co. Financ. Law Rev. 2022, 19, 128–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Deng, X.; Huang, Z.; Cheng, X. FinTech and Sustainable Development: Evidence from China Based on P2P Data. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, C.; Wang, L.; Zhao, S.; Yang, C.; Albitar, K. The impact of Fintech on corporate carbon emissions: Towards green and sustainable development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2024, 33, 5776–5796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kong, X.; Xu, T. How FinTech affects total factor energy efficiency? Evidence from Chinese cities. Front. Energy Res. 2023, 11, 1296820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Wen, H.; Liu, Y. Can Fintech Lead to the Collaborative Reduction in Pollution Discharges and Carbon Emissions? Sustainability 2023, 15, 11627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Udeagha, M.C.; Ngepah, N. The drivers of environmental sustainability in BRICS economies: Do green finance and fintech matter? World Dev. Sustain. 2023, 3, 100096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ma, Y.; Wei, X.; Yan, G.; He, X. The Impact of Fintech Development on Air Pollution. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhou, G.; Zhu, J.; Luo, S. The impact of fintech innovation on green growth in China: Mediating effect of green finance. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 193, 107308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Muganyi, T.; Yan, L.; Sun, H. Green Finance, Fintech and environmental protection: Evidence from China. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2021, 7, 100107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, M.; Li, M. Environmental regulation and green innovation: Evidence from China’s carbon emissions trading policy. Financ. Res. Lett. 2022, 48, 103051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Kuang, J. Fintech development and green innovation: Evidence from China. Energy Policy 2023, 183, 113827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dorfleitner, G.; Braun, D. Fintech, digitalization and blockchain: Possible applications for green finance. In The Rise of Green Finance in Europe; Migliorelli, M., Dessertine, P., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 207–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xue, Q.; Bai, C.; Xiao, W. Fintech and corporate green technology innovation: Impacts and mechanisms. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2022, 43, 3898–3914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Udeagha, M.C.; Muchapondwa, E. Striving for the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs) in BRICS economies: The role of green finance, fintech, and natural resource rent. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 3657–3672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, B.; Du, J.; Yao, T.; Wang, Q. FinTech and corporate green innovation: An external attention perspective. Financ. Res. Lett. 2023, 58, 104661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zheng, G.-W.; Siddik, A.B. The effect of Fintech adoption on green finance and environmental performance of banking institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of green innovation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 25959–25971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, Q.; You, Y. FinTech and Green Credit Development—Evidence from China. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, J.; Ma, L. Substantive green innovation or symbolic green innovation: The impact of fintech on corporate green innovation. Financ. Res. Lett. 2024, 63, 105265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Firdousi, S.F.; Afzal, A.; Amir, B. Nexus between FinTech, renewable energy resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 84686–84704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Vo, D.H.; Pham, A.T.; Tran, T.; Vu, N.T. Does income inequality moderate the effect of fintech development on renewable energy consumption? PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0293033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tu, Y.-T. Drivers of Environmental Performance in Asian economies: Do natural resources, green innovation and Fintech really matter? Resour. Policy 2024, 90, 104832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ashta, A. How Can Fintech Companies Get Involved in the Environment? Sustainability 2023, 15, 10675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Delina, L.L. Fintech RE in a global finance centre: Expert perceptions of the benefits of and challenges to digital financing of distributed and decentralised renewables in Hong Kong. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 97, 102997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aboalsamh, H.M.; Khrais, L.T.; Albahussain, S.A. Pioneering Perception of Green Fintech in Promoting Sustainable Digital Services Application within Smart Cities. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, T.-L.; Lin, T.T.; Hsu, S.-Y. Exploring the Perspective of Bank Employees on the Impact of Green Process Innovation and Perceived Environmental Responsibilities on the Sustainable Performance of the Banking Industry. Sustainability 2023, 15, 15925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yan, C.; Siddik, A.B.; Yong, L.; Dong, Q.; Zheng, G.-W.; Rahman, M.N. A Two-Staged SEM-Artificial Neural Network Approach to Analyze the Impact of FinTech Adoption on the Sustainability Performance of Banking Firms: The Mediating Effect of Green Finance and Innovation. Systems 2022, 10, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hidayat-ur-Rehman, I.; Hossain, M.N. The impacts of Fintech adoption, green finance and competitiveness on banks’ sustainable performance: Digital transformation as moderator. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhao, M.; Abeysekera, I. The behaviour of FinTech users in the Alipay Ant Forest platform towards environmental protection. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2024, 10, 100201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Qin, L.; Aziz, G.; Hussan, M.W.; Qadeer, A.; Sarwar, S. Empirical evidence of fintech and green environment: Using the green finance as a mediating variable. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2024, 89, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Awais, M.; Afzal, A.; Firdousi, S.; Hasnaoui, A. Is fintech the new path to sustainable resource utilisation and economic development? Resour. Policy 2023, 81, 103309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yang, Y.; Su, X.; Yao, S. Nexus between green finance, fintech, and high-quality economic development: Empirical evidence from China. Resour. Policy 2021, 74, 102445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Green Digital Finance Alliance & the Swiss. Green Fintech Network Green Fintech Classification. 2022. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jhYybC5aF9qHYb36_OT4rfmx0aoriieh/view?pli=1 (accessed on 16 November 2024).
  52. Siddik, A.B.; Yong, L.; Rahman, M.N. The Role of Fintech in Circular Economy Practices to Improve Sustainability Performance: A Two-Staged SEM-ANN Approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 107465–107486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pawłowska, M.; Staniszewska, A.; Grzelak, M. Impact of FinTech on sustainable development. Financ. Sci. 2022, 27, 49–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Galeone, G.; Ranaldo, S.; Fusco, A. ESG and FinTech: Are they connected? Res. Int. Bus. Financ. 2024, 69, 102225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kwong, R.; Kwok, M.L.J.; Wong, H.S.M. Green FinTech Innovation as a Future Research Direction: A Bibliometric Analysis on Green Finance and FinTech. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xu, J.; Chen, F.; Zhang, W.; Liu, Y.; Li, T. Analysis of the carbon emission reduction effect of Fintech and the transmission channel of green finance. Financ. Res. Lett. 2023, 56, 104127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ellahi, A.; Jillani, H.; Zahid, H. Customer awareness on Green banking practices. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2023, 13, 1377–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rocha, V.; Viegas, C.; Guerreiro, M.; Viola, T.W.; Kluwe-Schiavon, B. Green banking awareness and its association with green attitude, green trust, and green loyalty. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2025, 15, 250–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rai, R.; Kharel, S.; Devkota, N.; Paudel, U.R. Customers Perception on Green Banking Practices: A Desk Review. J. Econ. Concerns 2019, 10, 82–95. [Google Scholar]
  60. Finstad, K. Response interpolation and scale sensitivity: Evidence against 5-point scales. J. Usability Stud. 2010, 5, 104–110. [Google Scholar]
  61. Taber, K.S. The Use of Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res. Sci. Educ. 2018, 48, 1273–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xiong, N.; Ren, P.; Sun, B.; He, S.; Jiang, L.; Cui, H. Influence of incentive mechanism and fit degree on user’s environmental behavior-Taking Alipay “Ant Forest” in China as an example. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1033553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, N.; Hou, W.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Z.; Yang, L. Quantifying the effects of the ‘Internet plus Ecology’ framework on carbon sink in the digital age: A representative study of Ant Forest in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 124005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tsyganova, N.; Boldyriev, F. Development of Fintech in Ukraine and its forecasting on the example of the payment services industry. Odessa Natl. Univ. Herald. Econ. 2022, 27, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Novak, J.; Purta, M.; Marciniak, T.; Ignatowicz, K.; Rozenbaum, K.; Yearwood, K. The Rise of Digital Challengers. How Digitization can Become the Next Growth Engine for Central and Eastern Europe—Perspective on Poland. McKinsey & Company. 2018. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/pl/~/media/McKinsey/Locations/Europe%20and%20Middle%20East/Polska/Raporty/Polska%20jako%20cyfrowy%20challenger/Poland%20as%20a%20Digital%20Challenger%20-%20report%20in%20English.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2024).
  66. Lytvyn, O.; Onyshchenko, A.; Ostapenko, O. Economic challenges of sustainable Development goals in Ukraine. Balt. J. Econ. Stud. 2023, 9, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kotykova, O.; Pohorielova, O.; Babych, M. Key Aspects of the Relationship Between Sustainable Development Goals, Food Security and Agricultures in Ukraine. Eur. Countrys. 2022, 14, 721–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Brauers, H.; Oei, P.-Y.; Walk, P. Comparing coal phase-out pathways: The United Kingdom’s and Germany’s diverging transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2020, 37, 238–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. European Tech Insights. IE University Center for the Governance of Change. 2022. Available online: https://www.ie.edu/cgc/research/european-tech-insights/ (accessed on 14 December 2024).
  70. Ipsos. Earth Day 2019. How does the World Perceive Our Changing Environment? 2019. Available online: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-04/Earth-day-2019.pdf (accessed on 18 December 2024).
  71. Setton, D.; Tomala, J.; Matuschke, I.; Toth-Feher, N.; Wolf, I. Social Sustainability Barometer for the German Energiewende: 2018 Edition; Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies: Potsdam, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Venghaus, S.; Henseleit, M.; Belka, M. The impact of climate change awareness on behavioral changes in Germany: Changing minds or changing behavior? Energy Sustain. Soc. 2022, 12, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nam, H.; Konishi, S.; Nam, K.-W. Comparative analysis of decision making regarding nuclear policy after the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident: Case study in Germany and Japan. Technol. Soc. 2021, 67, 101735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hauenstein, C.; Braunger, I.; Krumm, A.; Oei, P.-Y. Overcoming political stalemates: The German stakeholder commission on phasing out coal. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2023, 103, 103203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Frequency distributions of the socio-demographic variables in the samples.
Table 1. Frequency distributions of the socio-demographic variables in the samples.
VariablePolandUkraineGermanyUnited Kingdom
N % N % N % N %
Gender
Female24549.025551.025350.625050.0
Male25551.024549.024749.425050.0
Age
21–255010.0479.4418.26212.4
26–3513627.213527.012024.012725.4
36–4514729.413827.611723.412324.6
46–5511923.811923.814128.213226.4
56–60489.66112.28116,25611.2
Place of residence
Rural area10320.68717.49619.210220.4
City up to 20,000 residents6312.67815.68717.47715.4
City between 20,001 and 50,000 residents6513.05110.27715.45511.0
City between 50,001 and 100,000 residents7615.2428.45410.85811.6
City between 100,001 and 200,000 residents5410.8153.0418.25010.0
City between 200,001 and 500,000 residents499.89519.0448.8499.8
City above 500,000 residents9018.013226.410120.210921.8
Note: The total number of observations is 2000, with 500 observations from each of the four countries. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Table 2. Characteristics of variables related to consumer awareness in the green FinTech area.
Table 2. Characteristics of variables related to consumer awareness in the green FinTech area.
VariableVariable Description
Digital technologies impactThe use of digital technologies by FinTech companies reduces their negative impact on the natural environment: 1—Strongly disagree, 2—Disagree, 3—Somewhat disagree, 4—It is hard to say, 5—Somewhat agree, 6—Agree, 7—Strongly agree
FinTech applicationsUsing financial applications from FinTech companies allows customers to reduce their negative impact on the natural environment: 1—Strongly disagree, 2—Disagree, 3—Somewhat disagree, 4—It is hard to say, 5—Somewhat agree, 6—Agree, 7—Strongly agree
Disclosure policy FinTech companies inform their customers about the impact of their services on the natural environment: 1—Strongly disagree, 2—Disagree, 3—Somewhat disagree, 4—It is hard to say, 5—Somewhat agree, 6—Agree, 7—Strongly agree
Green project financingFinTech companies support clients in financing projects that help protect the natural environment (they grant loans for ecological purposes): 1—Strongly disagree, 2—Disagree, 3—Somewhat disagree, 4—It is hard to say, 5—Somewhat agree, 6—Agree, 7—Strongly agree
Environmentally friendly FinTechFinTech companies operating in the United Kingdom/Germany/Poland/Ukraine * provide services taking into account environmental issues: 1—Strongly disagree, 2—Disagree, 3—Somewhat disagree, 4—It is hard to say, 5—Somewhat agree, 6—Agree, 7—Strongly agree
Note: * the relevant country name appeared in each version of the questionnaire. Source: Authors’ own questionnaire.
Table 8. Independent-sample Kruskal–Wallis test summary.
Table 8. Independent-sample Kruskal–Wallis test summary.
Test Statistic aSignificance
Digital technologies impact 28.918<0.001
FinTech applications 32.040<0.001
Disclosure policy 27.791<0.001
Green project financing 13.7120.003
Environmentally friendly FinTech28.633<0.001
Note: The total number of observations in the sample is 2000 (500 for each country); degrees of freedom = 3; a the test statistic is adjusted for ties; the significance level is 0.050. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Table 14. Descriptive Statistic—"Green FinTech Awareness”.
Table 14. Descriptive Statistic—"Green FinTech Awareness”.
MeanMedianStd. DeviationMinimumMaximum
Ukraine21.25021.0004.1165.00034.000
Poland22.27821.0004.8275.00035.000
Germany20.67020.0004.8275.00035.000
United Kingdom22.04420.0005.5405.00035.000
Note: The total number of observations is 2000 (500 for each country); “Green FinTech awareness” is the sum of the ranks of five variables described in Table 2. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Table 15. Reliability Statistic—"Green FinTech Awareness”.
Table 15. Reliability Statistic—"Green FinTech Awareness”.
Cronbach’s Alpha0.901
N of items5
Note: The total number of observations in the sample is 2000 (500 for each country). Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Table 16. Robust Tests of Equality of Means.
Table 16. Robust Tests of Equality of Means.
Green FinTech awareness
Statistic a df1df2Significance
Welch11.46531103.308<0.001
Note: a Asymptotically F distributed; the significance level is 0.050. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
Table 17. The Results of the Post-Hoc Test of the Significance of Differences Between Individual Pairs of Means.
Table 17. The Results of the Post-Hoc Test of the Significance of Differences Between Individual Pairs of Means.
Tamhane T2 Test
UkrainePolandGermanyUnited Kingdom
Ukraine0−1.02800 *0.58000−0.79400
Poland1.02800 *01.60800 *0.23400
Germany−0.58000−1.60800 *0−1.37400 *
United Kingdom0.79400−0.234001.37400 *0
Note: This table presents the mean difference between pairs of countries (the country in the row minus the country in the column); * the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level. Source: Authors’ own calculations.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Piotrowska, A.I.; Piotrowski, D. Green FinTech: A Consumer Awareness Study. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083701

AMA Style

Piotrowska AI, Piotrowski D. Green FinTech: A Consumer Awareness Study. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083701

Chicago/Turabian Style

Piotrowska, Anna Iwona, and Dariusz Piotrowski. 2025. "Green FinTech: A Consumer Awareness Study" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083701

APA Style

Piotrowska, A. I., & Piotrowski, D. (2025). Green FinTech: A Consumer Awareness Study. Sustainability, 17(8), 3701. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083701

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop