Abstract
Traditional financial means are no longer able to deal with the green finance issues in the new situation. While intelligence service has provided new ideas for green financial security management. The comprehensive and sustainable application of green financial security intelligence service will help to effectively guarantee green financial security. This research intends to study how willing are green finance stakeholders to use green financial security intelligence service and which factor will affect the willingness? This study first constructs a theoretical model of the use intention of green financial security intelligence service based on UTAUT, from the aspects of performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating condition, service quality, information quality, perceived advantage, perceived trust and perceived risk. Then, it conducts research on China’s first batch of green finance pilot cities (Ganjiang, Gui’an, Guangzhou, Huzhou, Quzhou, Changji, Hami, and Karamay), to discuss users’ perceptions of green financial security intelligence service and use intention in various regions. Next, this research uses the structural equation model to identify the factors that affect the willingness to use green financial security intelligence service. The results show that users pay more attention to the performance expectancy, effort expectancy and social influence brought by intelligence service. In order to increase users’ willingness, it is possible to increase users’ trust in green financial security intelligence service by ensuring information security, providing facilitating condition, and increasing application advantage.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Acharya, V. V., Pedersen, L. H., Philippon, T., & Richardson, M. (2017). Measuring systemic risk. The Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 2–47.
Alavi, S., Peivandzani, S., & Mirmohammadsadeghi, S. (2021). Risk sssessment and prioritization of ERP implementation based on BSC. Journal of Human, Earth, and Future, 2(1), 16–23.
Alroaia, V., Behmadi, M., & Razi, F. (2021). Develop market-oriented capabilities with an emphasis on innovation and entrepreneurship: The mediating role of knowledge management in manufacturing companies in Mashhad with the structural equation model approach. Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 16(62).
Amighini, A., Giudici, P., & Ruet, J. (2022). Green finance and ‘the future of funds’ an empirical analysis of the green climate fund portfolio structure. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131383
Anginer, D., Demirguc-Kunt, A., Huizinga, H., & Ma, K. B. (2018). Corporate governance of banks and financial stability. Journal of Financial Economics, 130(2), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2018.06.011
Arfi, W. B., Nasr, I. B., Khvatova, T., & Zaied, Y. B. (2021). Understanding acceptance of eHealthcare by IoT natives and IoT immigrants: An integrated model of UTAUT, perceived risk, and financial cost. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120437.
Arif, A., Vu, H. M., Cong, M., Wei, L. H., Islam, M., & Niedbała, G. (2022). Natural resources commodity prices volatility and economic performance: Evaluating the role of green finance. Resources Policy, 76, 102557.
Bai, J., Philippon, T., & Savov, A. (2016). Have financial markets become more informative? Journal of Financial Economics, 122(3), 625–654.
Batrancea, I., Batrancea, L., Maran Rathnaswamy, M., Tulai, H., Fatacean, G., & Rus, M.-I. (2020). Greening the financial system in USA, Canada and Brazil: A panel data analysis. Mathematics, 8(12), 2217.
Battiston, S., Farmer, J. D., Flache, A., Garlaschelli, D., Haldane, A. G., Heesterbeek, H., Hommes, C., Jaeger, C., May, R., & Scheffer, M. (2016). Complexity theory and financial regulation. Science, 351(6275), 818–819.
Bigdeli, A., Abdolvand, M. A., Heidarzadeh, K., & Khoun Siavash, M. (2021). CSR branding model in Iran banking industry based on structural equation modeling with the focus on brand social identity. Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 16(61).
Cavalcante, R. C., Brasileiro, R. C., Souza, V. L., Nobrega, J. P., & Oliveira, A. L. (2016). Computational intelligence and financial markets: A survey and future directions. Expert Systems with Applications, 55, 194–211.
Chadee, A. A., Chadee, X. T., Chadee, C., & Otuloge, F. (2022). Violations at the reference point of discontinuity: Limitations of prospect theory and an alternative model of risk choices. Emerging Science Journal, 6(1), 37–52.
Cui, H., Wang, R., & Wang, H. (2020). An evolutionary analysis of green finance sustainability based on multi-agent game. Journal of Cleaner Production, 269, 121799.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Mis Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
da Silva, C., Barbosa-Póvoa, A. P., & Carvalho, A. (2019). Green supply chain: Integrating financial risk measures while monetizing environmental impacts. In Computer Aided Chemical Engineering, 46, 1549–1554.
De Carvalho, T. V., & Sassi, R. J. (2014). An alternative to face worldwide financial crisis of 2008: Best practices usage of a business intelligence architecture in a chemical industry. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 8(4), 399–410.
Domansky, V. (2007). Repeated games with asymmetric information and random price fluctuations at finance markets. International Journal of Game Theory, 36(2), 241–257.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Janssen, M., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., & Clement, M. (2017). An empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption (UMEGA). Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 211–230.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719–734.
Falcone, P. M., Morone, P., & Sica, E. (2018). Greening of the financial system and fuelling a sustainability transition: A discursive approach to assess landscape pressures on the Italian financial system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 23–37.
Fang, Y., & Shao, Z. (2022). Whether green finance can effectively moderate the green technology innovation effect of heterogeneous environmental regulation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3646.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10(2), 244–245.
Fitrianie, S., Horsch, C., Beun, R. J., Griffioen-Both, F., & Brinkman, W.-P. (2021). Factors affecting user’s behavioral intention and use of a mobile-phone-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia: A small-scale UTAUT analysis. Journal of Medical Systems, 45(12), 1–18.
Gandy, A., & Veraart, L. A. (2017). A Bayesian methodology for systemic risk assessment in financial networks. Management Science, 63(12), 4428–4446.
Gao, Y., Li, Y., & Wang, Y. (2021). Risk spillover and network connectedness analysis of China’s green bond and financial markets: Evidence from financial events of 2015–2020. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 57, 101386.
Gifford, L., & Knudson, C. (2020). Climate finance justice: International perspectives on climate policy, social justice, and capital. Climatic Change, 161(2), 243–249.
Guo, L., Zhao, S., Song, Y., Tang, M., & Li, H. (2022). Green finance, chemical fertilizer use and carbon emissions from agricultural production. Agriculture, 12(3), 313.
Jeon, H. M., Sung, H. J., & Kim, H. Y. (2020). Customers’ acceptance intention of self-service technology of restaurant industry: Expanding UTAUT with perceived risk and innovativeness. Service Business, 14(4), 533–551.
Jia, F., Blome, C., Sun, H., Yang, Y., & Zhi, B. (2020). Jan). Towards an integrated conceptual framework of supply chain finance: An information processing perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 219, 18–30.
Kaupa, P. H., & Sassi, R. J. (2017). Rough sets: Technical computer intelligence applied to financial market. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 13(1), 130–145.
Kaye, S.-A., Lewis, I., Forward, S., & Delhomme, P. (2020). A priori acceptance of highly automated cars in Australia, France, and Sweden: A theoretically-informed investigation guided by the TPB and UTAUT. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 137, 105441.
Kim, J.-Y., Kim, J.-M., Kim, K., & Choi, Y.-S. (2019). Study on ocean intelligence service security utilizing blockchain technology. Journal of Coastal Research. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI91-060.1
Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Wang, G. (2014). Evaluation of clustering algorithms for financial risk analysis using MCDM methods. Information Sciences, 275, 1–12.
Kou, G., Chao, X., Peng, Y., Alsaadi, F. E., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2019). Machine learning methods for systemic risk analysis in financial sectors. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 25(5), 716–742.
Lamperti, F., Bosetti, V., Roventini, A., Tavoni, M., & Treibich, T. (2021). Three green financial policies to address climate risks. Journal of Financial Stability, 54, 100875.
Lawson-Body, A., Willoughby, L., Lawson-Body, L., & Tamandja, E. M. (2018). Students’ acceptance of E-books: An application of UTAUT. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 60(3), 256–267.
Lee, C.-C., & Lee, C.-C. (2022). How does green finance affect green total factor productivity? Evidence from China. Energy Economics, 107, 105863.
Li, W., Fan, J., & Zhao, J. (2022a). Has green finance facilitated China’s low-carbon economic transition? Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19891-8
Li, Z., Kuo, T.-H., Siao-Yun, W., & Vinh, L. T. (2022b). Role of green finance, volatility and risk in promoting the investments in renewable energy resources in the post-covid-19. Resources Policy, 76, 102563.
Lins, K. V., Servaes, H., & Tamayo, A. (2017). Social capital, trust, and firm performance: The value of corporate social responsibility during the financial crisis. The Journal of Finance, 72(4), 1785–1824.
Liu, B., Wu, M., Tao, M., Wang, Q., He, L., Shen, G., Chen, K., & Yan, J. (2020). Video content analysis for compliance audit in finance and security industry. Ieee Access, 8, 117888–117899.
Liu, C., Zhang, F., Wang, X., Chan, N. W., Rahman, H. A., Yang, S., & Tan, M. L. (2022a). Assessing the factors influencing water quality using environment water quality index and partial least squares structural equation model in the Ebinur Lake Watershed, Xinjiang, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-17886-5
Liu, Z., Vu, T. L., Phan, T. T. H., Ngo, T. Q., Anh, N. H. V., & Putra, A. R. S. (2022b). Financial inclusion and green economic performance for energy efficiency finance. Economic Change and Restructuring. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-022-09393-5
Mandel, D. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2018). Correcting judgment correctives in national security intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02640
Meisenberg, G. (2012). National IQ and economic outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(2), 103–107.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 56–64.
Ning, Q. Q., Guo, S. L., & Chang, X. C. (2021). Nexus between green financing, economic risk, political risk and environment: evidence from China. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2012710
Oye, N., & Iahad, N. A. (2014). The history of UTAUT model and its impact on ICT acceptance and usage by academicians. Education and Information Technologies, 19(1), 251–270.
Patil, P., Tamilmani, K., Rana, N. P., & Raghavan, V. (2020). Understanding consumer adoption of mobile payment in India: Extending Meta-UTAUT model with personal innovativeness, anxiety, trust, and grievance redressal. International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102144.
Rampini, A. A., Viswanathan, S., & Vuillemey, G. (2020). Risk management in financial institutions. Journal of Finance, 75(2), 591–637.
Rasoulinezhad, E., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2022). Role of green finance in improving energy efficiency and renewable energy development. Energy Efficiency, 15(2), 1–12.
Rieger, M. O., Wang, M., & Hens, T. (2015). Risk preferences around the world. Management Science, 61(3), 637–648.
Salahodjaev, R. (2015). Intelligence and finance. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 282–286.
Sarnacchiaro, P., & Boccia, F. (2018). Some remarks on measurement models in the structural equation model: An application for socially responsible food consumption. Journal of Applied Statistics, 45(7), 1193–1208.
Shams, M., Mei, T., & Adnan, Z. (2021). Nexus between idiosyncratic deals and work engagement via psychological empowerment: A PLS-SEM approach. Management Science Letters, 11(2), 689–698.
Sharma, R., Singh, G., & Sharma, S. (2020). Modelling internet banking adoption in Fiji: A developing country perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102116.
Soh, P. Y., Heng, H. B., Selvachandran, G., Anh, L. Q., Chau, H. T. M., Son, L. H., Abdel-Baset, M., Manogaran, G., & Varatharajan, R. (2020). Perception, acceptance and willingness of older adults in Malaysia towards online shopping: A study using the UTAUT and IRT models. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-01718-4
Tomić, N., Kalinić, Z., & Todorović, V. (2022). Using the UTAUT model to analyze user intention to accept electronic payment systems in Serbia. Portuguese Economic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-022-00210-5
Torresin, S., Albatici, R., Aletta, F., Babich, F., Oberman, T., Stawinoga, A. E., & Kang, J. (2022). Indoor soundscapes at home during the COVID-19 lockdown in London-Part II: A structural equation model for comfort, content, and well-being. Applied Acoustics, 185, 108379.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. Mis Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Wang, X., Gan, L., & Liu, S. (2020). Research on intelligence analysis technology of financial industry data based on genetic algorithm. The Journal of Supercomputing, 76(5), 3391–3401.
Wang, Z., Shahid, M. S., Binh An, N., Shahzad, M., & Abdul-Samad, Z. (2022). Does green finance facilitate firms in achieving corporate social responsibility goals? Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2027259
Xiong, Q., & Sun, D. (2022). Influence analysis of green finance development impact on carbon emissions: An exploratory study based on fsQCA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18351-z
Yang, X., Liu, D., Fu, Q., Li, T., Hou, R., Li, Q., Li, M., & Meng, F. (2022). Characteristics of greenhouse gas emissions from farmland soils based on a structural equation model: Regulation mechanism of biochar. Environmental Research, 206, 112303.
Yao, L. (2019). Financial accounting intelligence management of internet of things enterprises based on data mining algorithm. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 37(5), 5915–5923.
Yao, L., & Da, D. (2022). Role of social capital and financial well-being in reaching successful entrepreneurial financial performance: A moderated-mediated model of financial intelligence. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.843501
Zeng, Y., Wang, F., & Wu, J. (2022). The impact of green finance on urban haze pollution in China: A technological innovation perspective. Energies, 15(3), 801.
Zhang, C.-L. (2016). Risk assessment of supply chain finance with intuitionistic fuzzy information. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 31(3), 1967–1975.
Zhang, Y., & Lu, J. (2022). Green finance and corporate environmental violations: A test from the perspective of illegal pollution discharge behaviors. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19228-5
Zhang, J., Li, F., & Ding, X. (2022). Will green finance promote green development: based on the threshold effect of R&D investment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20161-w
Funding
The work is supported by National Social Science Foundation of China (19BTQ089) and Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (KJ2020A1073).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Haibei Chen was involved in formal analysis, preparation, software, writing—review and editing. Xianglian Zhao contributed to formal analysis, methodology, data curation, writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Consent for publication
It is stated here that neither the entire paper nor any part of its content has been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. All authors are aware of the submission and agree to its publication.
Ethics approval
There is no ethical issue involved in this article.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Variable definitions
Appendix: Variable definitions
Variable | Definition |
---|---|
Performance expectancy | Individual or organization’s belief that using a certain technology or system can improve work performance |
Effort expectancy | The effort required by an individual or organization to use a certain technology or system |
Social influence | The influence of individuals or organizations on the use of a technology or system by the surrounding groups |
Facilitating condition | The degree of support that an individual or organization receives when using a technology or system |
Service quality | The intelligence service meets the needs of relevant users for green financial security management |
Information quality | Intelligence information is accurate, safe, and reliable |
Perceived advantage | The information provided by the intelligence service is more authoritative, and risks can be predicted and controlled in a relatively short period of time |
Perceived trust | Trust is the prerequisite for users to adopt intelligence service, which means that users are willing to bear the ultimate risk and cost |
Perceived risk | The unreasonable use of intelligence may affect the control of green financial security, and the leakage of intelligence may also increase the uncertainty of green financial security |
Use intention | The willingness to use intelligence service |
PE1 | Intelligence service is conducive to ensuring green financial security |
PE2 | Intelligence service is beneficial to improve the efficiency of green financial security management |
PE3 | Intelligence service helps decision makers to make effective decisions |
EE1 | The intelligence information acquisition is relatively simple |
EE2 | The intelligence technology learning is relatively simple |
EE3 | The application of intelligence information is relatively simple |
SI1 | Relevant institutions use intelligence service to ensure green financial security |
SI2 | Relevant institutions support the use of intelligence service |
SI3 | Relevant institutions believe the use of intelligence service is necessary |
CC1 | The organization has complete equipment, advanced technology and can carry out intelligence service |
CC2 | The organization has special intelligence personnel, which can directly carry out intelligence service |
CC3 | The organization carries out intelligence service training regularly |
SQ1 | Intelligence service can meet the needs of green financial management |
SQ2 | The information provided by the intelligence service is timely |
SQ3 | The decision-making advice provided by the intelligence service is very effective |
IQ1 | The information content provided by the intelligence service is very accurate |
IQ2 | The information content provided by the intelligence service is very safe |
IQ3 | The information content provided by the intelligence service is very reliable |
PA1 | Compared with other ways, intelligence service is more secure for green financial risk management |
PA2 | Compared with other ways, information provided by intelligence service is more authoritative and reliable |
PA3 | Compared with other ways, intelligence service is simple |
PT1 | Intelligence service is trustworthy |
PT2 | Intelligence service can effectively guarantee the security of green finance |
PT3 | Intelligence service can help the green financial management to make the right judgment |
PR1 | False intelligence may mislead decisions |
PR2 | Intelligence disclosure may increase green financial risk |
PR3 | The unreasonable use of information may affect the control of green financial risk |
AI1 | We are willing to use intelligence service |
AI2 | It is a wise decision to manage green financial risk through intelligence service |
AI3 | It is intended to recommend other agencies to use intelligence service |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, H., Zhao, X. Use intention of green financial security intelligence service based on UTAUT. Environ Dev Sustain 25, 10709–10742 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02501-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02501-5