Analysis the Effect of Information Technology Capability, Business Innovation, Digital Disruption and Digital Disruption Reactions on Sustainable Banking Performance


Pdf : 20 Views 71 Download 

Amirul Wicaksono*

Citation: Amirul Wicaksono, Itjang D. Gunawan, Zulkifli Husin, ”ANALYSIS THE EFFECT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CAPABILITY, BUSINESS INNOVATION, DIGITAL DISRUPTION AND DIGITAL DISRUPTION REACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE BANKING PERFORMANCE .”. American Research Journal of Business and Management, vol 6, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-16.

Copyright Copyright © 2020 Amirul Wicaksono , et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Abstract:

Banks have an exclusive intermediary responsibility in maintaining sustainable development and have a demanding position related to digital technology development that requires banks to make adjustments. Technological innovations in financial services (FinTech) are overgrowing at this time. Referring to that, this research intends to examine more deeply the effect of information technology capabilities, business innovation, digital disruption and digital disruption reactions on sustainable banking performance. The object of the research was 54 banks that were categorized as Book I to Book IV Banks based on the decision of the Financial Services Authority (OJK). The sample used was 205 respondents who served as Chief Executive Officer (CEO)/ Chief Financial Officer (CFO) / Chief Technology Officer (CTO) / General Manager / Manager / Vice President. Purposive sampling used to determine the sample and Structural Equation Model (SEM) used for the analytical method. This study indicates that the direct effects of information technology capability and digital disruption reactions have a positive and significant effect on sustainable banking performance, and digital disruption has a positive and significant effect on digital disruption reactions. Only banking business innovation is having no significant effect on sustainable banking performance. While the indirect effect of digital disruption on sustainable banking performance mediated by the reaction to digital disruption shows positive and significant results. The ability of qualified information technology supported by digital capabilities and investment in human capital through development with training and dissemination of digital product/service development will encourage higher banking performance. Whereas business innovations that did not significantly effect bank performance, banks must synergize and collaborate with digital service providers outside the bank. Also, digital disruption has a positive effect on digital disruption reaction so that banks are expected to quickly and appropriately integrate
digital disruption into the corporate strategy in the form of RBB (Bank Business Plan) because this will positively effect sustainable banking performance. The limited research related to digital reaction makes this research as one of the essential studies for banks so that banking management can blend in the banking strategy so that the banking business system so that bank financial technology can continue to make adjustments to information technology so that it makes banking performance sustainable and competitive.

Keywords: Islamic Motivation Entrepreneurship, Islamic Ethics Business Islamic Business Performance.


Description:

Introduction
Demand in the global competitive business environment requires sustainable development commitment and sustainability issues concerns for strategic importance. There are three aspects of sustainability when assessing company performances: economic, social, and environmental  performance (Ozcelik and Ozturk, 2014). Incorporating sustainability into the company’s strategy requires evaluating the performance of the sustainability strategy as an awareness of the sustainability and activities of the company to improve the sustainability of the organization itself (Goyal et al., 2013). Sustainable business model innovation is increasingly seen as a driver for system change for sustainability across businesses and industries including the banking industry. The bank holds a unique intermediary role in sustainable development (Yip and Boken, 2018). Modern business, which
is characterized by rapid and dynamic change, successful business achievements and competitive advantages, is only possible if companies implement their capabilities faster and wiser than their competitors through innovation (Cirera and Muzi, 2016) by utilizing investments in information technology (Turulja and Bajgoric, 2016) encourages organizations to achieve allocative efficiency and productivity.

Several studies have shown that investment in information and communication technology has a significant and positive influence on financial performance (Aral et al., 2006; Bresnahan et al., 2002; Brynjolfsson and Hitt, 2003; Dewan et al, 2000). This finding is consistent with Schumpeter’s theory which recognizes the importance of change and technological innovation as a major driver of economic growth and company performance (Romer, 1990; David, 1990; Aghion and Howitt, 2007). Technological innovation plays a key role in explaining the dynamic nature of organizations (Cainelli et al., 2006). In the process, the company introduces new products, services and organizational processes, thereby gaining market share at the expense of competitors who do not innovate (Scott et al.,2017).

The company’s technology adoption according to Anderson et al. (2006) emphasize that the need for technology development is very urgent in the financial services sector, especially with the current wave of “fintech” (financial technology) innovation, where the use of different technologies
has different effects on organizations (Evangelista, 2000; Ajlouni & Al-Hakim, 2018). Fintech is narrowly interpreted by activating technology for financial services (World Economic Forum, 2017). Banks prefer to provide services using information technology-based channels and reduce dependence on branch offices (Gunsel & Tukel, 2011). The success of digital innovation depends on digital investment and the support of resources. Digital investment is one of the supporting factors of banking related to product/service innovation and helping banks develop new business
models to maintain sustainable business performance in the banking industry (Cirera & Muzi, 2016). Developing a new business model aims to create a sustainable banking business. The sustainability business model can be a useful framework for organizational ‘system change’ (Bocken and Short, 2015) through innovation. According to Girotra and Netessine (2013), business model innovations in various industries and enable systematization of the process of identifying, selecting, and refining innovations. There is an urgent need for a fundamentally different approach to value creation (Coulter
et al., 2013). It is important to move from product and process modification to business model innovation (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2016).

Research related to the impact of digital disruption as a result of technological developments, the support of information technology capabilities and business innovation today greatly affects the performance of sustainable banking. However, comprehensive research related to these three variables was not found because many studies conducted partial research. In 367 small companies in the US showed the significant role of new technologies introduced (Thong et al., 1996; Kuan and Chau, 2001) with the costs and risks associated with adopting and implementing higher ICT for companies in small companies because of limited resources and lack of knowledge related to technology management (Grandon and Pearson, 2004). Rajapathirana & Hui (2018) in his research explained innovation in product, marketing, and organizational innovation activities on performance. Whereas Bughin &
Zeebroeck (2017) research shows that digital disruption has a strong negative and significant effect on bank performance. Failure to react to digital disruption damages company performance. Whereas the mediating effect of strategic alignment on the performance-reaction relationship produces
a positive and significant coefficient. This means that digital disruption will be significantly mitigated when integrated into the company’s strategy. A strong strategic reaction will have a positive impact on company performance when digital is fully integrated into the company’s strategy with higher revenue growth. In Bughin & Zeebroeck (2017) research, it does not include aspects of human capital and business innovation in its research model. Meanwhile, according to Parimo (2017), human resource development activities should be considered more in the new economic period based on information technology. At the organizational level, human resources play an important role in strategic planning to create a competitive
advantage.

The innovation of sustainable business models in addition to human capital is increasingly seen as a lever for system
changes for sustainability throughout business and industry. Appiahene et al. (2019) in his research shows that business
innovation through information technology investment will support banking performance in various bank branches.
Information technology facilities will improve efficiency and effectiveness in terms of service to customers. This is an added
value related to information technology investment because it
will improve cost efficiency in banking activities and support
banking operations to be more effective and competitive.
Contrary to Yip & Bocken (2018) who conducted research
related to Hongkong banking, explaining that adopting slow
business model innovations in business is because the main
players are international banks that are quite large and not
proactive in screening unsustainable businesses, as well as
perceptions of practicing sustainability. Raises short-term
costs and involves changes in doing business so this has an
impact on the low priority of the banking business agenda.
Referring to the background, this research aims to combine
the variables of information technology capability, business
innovation and digital disruption and digital disruption
reaction on the performance of sustainable banking in the
same research framework to produce a comprehensive study.
Literature Review
Business Sustainability
The main idea of all definitions of sustainability is, that
there are interactions of three main systems, namely:
environmental, economic and social (Zyadat, 2017).
In the financial and banking industry, the concept of
sustainability is the process of designing, building and running
a banking business for the long term by taking a holistic view of
resources. Sustainability in banking must be a perfect blend of
corporate culture, efforts to innovate business and operations,
and mutual excellence that leads to sustainable banking
(Ramnarain & Pillay, 2016). The concept of a sustainable bank
is a bank that reaches a certain level of global satisfaction that
is good enough for all its stakeholders (Rebai et.al 2012).
Referring to the perspective of the organization, corporate
sustainability is defined as meeting the needs of stakeholders
both directly and indirectly, without compromising its ability
to meet the needs of future stakeholders (Ozcelik & Ozturk,
2014). Hempel et al. (1994) adopted 4 stakeholder groups;
namely surplus units, deficit units, owners and regulators (Rebai
et al., 2012). Whereas Avkiran and Morita (2010) revealed that
there are five stakeholders as follows: shareholders, customers,
managers, employees, and regulators. This shows carefully
the consideration of appropriate stakeholder classification.
According to Rebai et al. (2012), sustainable banks must
adapt to changes in the world. This must be done to create
a strong and sustainable business value by respecting the
rights of all stakeholders. One of the banking resources used
in value creation and value offerings is technology support
(Nosratabadi et.al, 2020; Bouwman et al., 2005). The Global
Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV) (2012) defines that
sustainable banks not only do not harm but actively use finance
to ‘do good’. For example, a crisis caused by technological
disruption will trigger a rethinking of the ‘unsustainable’
business model adopted by banks (Stephens et al., 2012).
Case (2012) describes the history of the sustainable financial
services sector as starting with: a) philanthropy giving back
to the public from business profits; b) ethically / socially
responsible investments by not investing in businesses that have
negative social impacts; c) growth and value creation “manage
sustainability risks and capture sustainability opportunities to
achieve long-term performance”. Sustainability in financial
services does not only turn into the concept of “green” or
environmentally friendly (Eccles and Serafeim, 2013); but
rather the productive value, transparency and accountability
to “shareholders” and “other stakeholders. Rogers (2013)
highlights that banks and financial institutions have become
one of the most untrustworthy organizations due to the lack of
sustainable practices that have resulted in several companies
going bankrupt.
The main idea, which must be recognized by the banking
sector is that activities related to the environment and society
can strategically increase profits through environmental
stewardship and the promotion of social equality, by serving
shareholders and producing greater quality goods/services.
When that happens, the bank’s value increases through
increasing reputation, performance, and appreciation among
key stakeholders (Stankeviciene & Nikonorova, 2014).
The Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV)
formulates sustainable banks as providers of services and
products that meet economic and human needs (Karkowska,
2019) with five main principles, namely: (i) triple bottom
line approach to the main business model, (ii) community,
(iv) long-term relationships with clients and a direct
understanding of economic activities and risks that occur, (v)
Long-term, independent efforts, and resistance to disruption,
and (vi) Transparent and inclusive governance.Integrating
sustainability into banking activities is an increasingly
necessary but very challenging problem facing financial
institutions. Sustainability integration takes two forms
(Korzeb & Medina, 2019):
i. Socially and environmentally responsible initiatives.
ii. Integration of environmental and social considerations
into product design, mission and business strategies
Gelder (2006) and Straw (2013) explain that sustainable
banking cannot be created without a cultural change in
organizations; Sustainable banking values need to be embedded
intrinsically in corporate culture. Ernst & Young (2013)
promote cultural factors in sustainable business, operations,
products and service design; and ensure that corporate behavior
adopted is also sustainable to create a banking company that
is well synchronized in creating sustainability (Revell, 2013;
Straw, 2013).
Organizational Level Innovation
Innovation is defined as the process of turning ideas into
goods or services to create value for customers. Innovation
involves the creation and implementation of new processes,
technology, delivery methods, and human resources that result
in a significant increase in production that makes the company
more efficient than its competitors (Chai et al., 2016). Some
researchers have advocated focusing on knowledge about
capital assets compared to input or innovation results, which
lead to new activities, to obtain investment in intangible assets
using data from various sources (Corrado et al., 2005, 2006, and
2011; Hulten & Hao, 2012). This approach uses three general
categories as activities related to innovation (or ability): (1)
computerized information (software and databases); (2)
innovative property (R&D and intellectual property protection
costs, architectural and engineering designs); and (3) economic
competence (brand name, company-specific human capital
and organizational capital).
A sustainable business model as sustainable innovation,
balancing the competing and complementary interests of the
stakeholder segment, and the context of business sustainability
must be a manifestation of economic viability and contribute
to social and environmental sustainability (Edgeman and
Eskildsen, 2013). The sustainable business innovation model
seeks to “create significant positive benefits for negative
impacts on the environment and society, through changes in
the way organizations and values, create networks, deliver and
capture value (Bocken and Short, 2015).
Sustainable Business Model for The Banking Industry
Commercial banks, as a service industry, play an important
role in allocating financial resources for human and economic
activities to develop, not only for now but also in the future.
Also, the role of banks is to fund a stable and sustainable
economy (Alexander, 2014). Although the direct impact on
the environment related to banking operations may be small,
the indirect impact is very large. There are opportunities to
use the power of banks to address the immediate needs of the
community through sustainable business model innovations for

banking (Yip & Bocken, 2018).
Yip and Bocken (2018) introduce a sustainable business
model consisting of 1) maximizing material and energy
efficiency, 2) replacing with digital processes, 3) encouraging
adequacy, 4) adopting the role of stewardship, 5) creating
inclusive value, 6) repurposing for the community/
environment, 7) resilience in lending, 8) sustainable financial
products. Whereas Nosratabadi et al (2020) explained that a
sustainable business model includes value propositions, core
competencies, financial aspects, business processes, target
customers, resources, technology, direct relationships with
customers, and partnership networks.
Digital Capability
The ability of corporate information technology according
to Turulja and Bajgorić (2016) is defined as the ability
of companies to select, accept, configure and implement
information technology. In other words, information
technology capabilities include information technology
infrastructure within the company, as well as supporting
processes and knowledge associated with it. According to
Turulja and Bajgorić (2016), the concept of information
technology capability is seen from three dimensions namely:
information technology knowledge, information technology
activities, and information technology infrastructure.
The three dimensions of information technology capability
interact with each other and have an impact on the level
of an organization that can utilize its investment to gain
strategic advantage. Information technology resources include
information technology infrastructure, human skills using
information technology, and the ability of organizations to
manipulate information technology which, when combined
will form intangible resources called information technology
capabilities (Bharadwaj, 2000). Whereas Mazidi et al.
(2014) the scope of information technology capabilities
includes four very important information technology-based
resources, namely information technology infrastructure,
human resources information technology, related information
technology resources, and information technology business
experience. Information technology capability is the ability
to manage these resources that are used to compete in the
industry or as a reference for gaining a competitive advantage.
The information technology resource-based view shows that
companies can and do differ from competitors using company
information technology resources (Mazidi et al, 2014).
Disruptive Technology
Schumpeter (1942), defines creative destruction as “the
process of industrial mutation that continues to revolutionize
the economic structure from within, does not stop destroying
the old to continue to create new ones. The process of
destruction of creativity is related to capitalism (Bughin and
Zeebroeck, 2017).
The concept of disruption to technology and innovation is
discussed by Bower and Christensen (1995) and Christensen
(1997). The starting point for these experts is the constant
observation that many incumbent companies fail to adapt to
radically new technologies and business models (Bower and
Christensen, 1995). This theory argues that disruption occurs
when superior technology in a new dimension that is attractive
to dominant industries, will try to make improvements to
other dimensions that meet the needs of the mass market.
Technological inferiority causes incumbents to become
unaware or disturbed by change and eventually begin to be
disrupted, and with technology, disruptions will improve the
business model of new entrants to the industry to attack the
full incumbent mass market segment.
The emergence of disruptive innovations creates winners
and losers. Winners are companies that have the skills needed
to take advantage of innovation. The benefits of innovation
in the industry are distributed among different groups such
as innovators, customers, suppliers, imitators, and other
followers (Rad, 2017).
Responses to Digital Disruption
Christensen (1997) offers two alternative strategies related
to response to disruption: ignore disruptions (ie stick to the
main strategy) or embrace disruption and this is preferred in
separate businesses. Charitou and Markides (2003) challenge
this dichotomy and offer richer possibilities: using both
extreme scenarios (ignoring or embracing disturbances) and
adding the possibility of investing in a business by maintaining
existing businesses in parallel with new businesses based on
disruptive elements), or Strike back through disruption of a
strategy called “leap”. The optimal response depends on the
ability and motivation of existing companies to respond to
existing disturbances (Bughin and Zeebroeck, 2017).
Adner and Snow (2010a, b) and Adner and Kapoor (2016)
emphasize one possibility of overreaction, called “bold retreat”.
This is a defensive strategy that consists of refocusing the
business on specific market segments that can be maintained
where the old market proposition can still dominate the new.
But this can be done if digitization leads to new variations
in demand. However, Chandy and Tellis (2000), Christensen
and Overdorf (2003) and Charitou and Markides (2003) stated
that old players would be wiser to adopt offensive responses,
capture new products and segments, and usually by accessing
new resources through alliances and or acquisition. Kane
et al (2015) also recognize that the most appropriate digital
strategy is to change original business through a new offensive
business model.
Bughin & Zeebroeck (2017) classifies strategic reaction
ranks on two vertical and horizontal axes: the level of
investment in the source of the disturbance (ie digital
technology) and the extent of changes in the company’s or
business strategy (ie strategic transformation). Along the

horizontal axis the intensity of digital investment versus
the competition and along the vertical axis of strategic
transformation combined into 4 (four) special clusters: weak
reaction (no reaction), medium reactions, semi bold reactions
and bold at scale reactions. Industries that dare on a large scale
bring major changes to the company’s strategy. These changes
involve 3 types of strategies: acquisition or development of
new business and/or customer segments, the introduction
of new business models (disrupting) even the risk of loss of
existing revenue and redefining the company’s value chain.
The digitalization of media as a disruptive innovation due
to demographic factors, behavior and expectations of new
consumers, challenges of the ecosystem and technological
processes are four types of elements that act as drivers of
disruptive innovation (Rad, 2017).
Hypothesis
The Influence of Information Technology Capability on
Sustainable Banking Performance.
The relationship between information technology and
company performance refers to the capability-based view
and uses information technology capabilities as input (Lin,
2007). Information technology investment is assumed to
lead to better information technology capabilities which in
turn leads to competitive advantage (Ou et al., 2009). The
ability of a company’s information technology involves its
ability to mobilize and disseminate information technologybased
resources in combination or in collaboration with other
resources and capabilities, which in turn has a significant
impact on the company’s performance. Information technology
resources consist of three parts: (a) tangible resources consisting
of information technology infrastructure, (b) human resources
related to information technology consisting of technical
skills and managerial capabilities of information technology,
and (c) intangible resources information technology such as
information management capabilities (Bharadwaj, 2000).
Information technology resources in combination create
broad information technology capabilities (Bharadwaj,
2000) that lead to competitive advantage and better company
performance increasing revenue and lowering costs. Thus the
company’s information technology strategy must be supported
by the human dimension that facilitates organizational learning
as the main determinant of information technology success.
Referring to the theory and previous research, the research
hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Information technology capability has a
positive effect on the performance of sustainable banking
The Effect of Business Innovation on Sustainable
Banking Performance
A company’s ability to innovate is the most important
determinant of success (Calontone et al, 2002). Innovation is
recognized as one of the main assumptions of the company’s
competitive advantage and business performance, especially in
the modern economy. Business model innovation is a systemoriented
approach; not only product processes and innovations
(Laukkanen and Patala, 2014; Peric and Djurkin, 2014). Yip
and Bocken (2018) view business model innovation as a
change of mindset that starts with innovation (product/process)
which will serve as a catalyst for further innovation, which
will ultimately change the organization’s business model.
Besides, Yip & Bocken (2018) explained that an innovative
business model is the result of a deliberate and sustainable
process that includes economic, social and environmental
benefits in generating profit regularly. Lüdeke-Freund et al.
(2016) explain that the company involved in business model
innovation is a deliberate decision. The creation of integrated
ecological, social and economic values will likely require
a radical new business model. Similar to the archetype of a
sustainable business model according to Bocken et al. (2014)
can be seen as a key innovation driving sustainable business
model innovations. Referring to the theory and research
results, the research hypothesis is as follows:



Hypothesis 2: There is a positive influence of business
innovation on the performance of sustainable bankin
The Effect of Digital Disruption on Digital Disruption
Reaction
Research by Bughin and Zeebroeck (2017) shows that
digital disruption has a strong negative and significant effect
on firm performance. The effect of digital disruption is very
negative and significant in companies that react weakly and
react moderately, but it is not significant for companies that
are rather brave and brave in responding to digital disruption.
This provides further confidence that failure to react to digital
disruption damages company performance. So the hypothesis
of this study is as follows:
Hypothesis 3: There is a digital effect on digital disruption
reactions.
The Effect of Digital Disruption Reaction on Sustainable
Banking Performance
Bughin & Zeebroeck (2017) explains that companies
that pay attention to and react to disruptions can overcome
the most important disruption effects: (i) organizations
react boldly in terms of strategic transformation and digital
investment and (ii) integrate digital efforts into corporate
strategy. Such successful steps require a focus on innovation
and new business development that utilizes digital capabilities,
rather than maintaining existing business lines and ignoring
opportunities through cost-cutting, automation, or improving
existing customer service. Therefore, the current empirical
research finds that it is consistent with Christensen’s (1997)
disturbance theory that organizations must dare to react and
be offensive and embrace the sources of disturbances. These
results are also consistent with the results of Westerman et
al. (2014), which shows that digital transformation leads to
superior performance. So the hypothesis of this study is as
follows:
Hypothesis 4: There is an effect of digital disruption
reaction on sustainable banking performance
The Mediation Effects of Digital Disruption Reaction
between Digital Disruption to Sustainable Banking
Performance
The Bughin & Zeebroeck (2017) study explains that the
mediating effect of strategic alignment on the relationship of
reaction and performance results in positive and significant
coefficients meaning that if digital disruption can be
significantly mitigated when integrated into the company’s
strategy then it will further improve company performance.
So the hypothesis of this study is as follows:
Hypothesis 5: The effect of digital disruption on sustainable
banking performance is mediated by the digital disruption
reaction
Methodology
The design in this study uses a hypothesis testing method
that explains the effect of IT capability, business innovation
and digital disruption on sustainability banking performance
with the mediating variable reaction to digital disruption. The
object of the research is the banks in the category of BUKU 1 to
BUKU 4. The quantitative approach uses structured interview
techniques through questionnaires to Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) / Chief Financial Officer (CFO) / Chief Technology
Officer (CTO), / General Manager / Manager / Vice President.
The qualitative approach in this study uses in-depth interviews
with internal stakeholders, namely CEO and Director of the
bank. The definitions and measurements of each variable are
shown in Table 1. below:
Respondents’ answers used a Likert scale, namely: 1 =
Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly
Agree.
The analytical method used for hypothesis testing is
the Structural Equation Model (SEM). To test the validity
measured using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The
factor loading value uses a cut off of 0.4 because the total
sample used in this study is 205 respondents (Hair et al, 2014).
While the reliability test uses the calculation of construct
reliability and generally accepted rules are alpha values
between 0.6-0.7 indicating an acceptable level of reliability
(Ursachi et al., 2015. Based on the results of the study showed
that 4o indicators used in this study the study has an adequate
level of validity and reliability.
Result
SEM Model Testing is used to test the relationship between
constructs developed by research. Therefore SEM analysis is
carried out by the AMOS version and simultaneously analyzes
the good-of-fit index. The results are supported by a Good fit
index. For the whole model, the statistical results show that
the CFI indicator with a value of 0.910 is more than the cutoff
0.90 and the RMSEA is 0.068 which is between the cut-off
interval of 0.03 to 0.08 so that based on the two indicators the
model is declared good fit. After being declared valid, reliable
and a good fit model, the hypothesis test is then conducted.
Hypothesis Test
Hypothesis testing using the Structural Equation Model
(SEM) method in this study refers to the results of Table 2
Direct Effect
Tests on the influence of information technology capabilities
on sustainable banking performance show that the information
technology capability coefficient is positive at 0.208 with a
p-value of 0.0085 (0.017 / 2) smaller when compared to α =
0.05 meaning that information technology capability has a
positive effect and significant towards sustainable banking
performance. The positive influence shows that the higher










the capability of bank information technology, sustainable
banking performance will be higher.
Tests on the effect of business innovation on sustainable
banking performance show that the coefficient of business
innovation is positive at 0.115 with a p-value of 0.094 (0.188
/ 2) greater when compared to α = 0.05 meaning that business
innovation has no significant effect on sustainable banking
performance.
Tests on the effect of digital disruption on the reaction to
digital disruption show that the digital disruption coefficient
is positive at 0.974 with a p-value of 0.0000 smaller when
compared to α = 0.05 means that digital disruption has
a positive and significant effect on the reaction to digital
disruption. The positive effect produced by the coefficient of
digital disruption means that if digital disruption is higher the
reaction to digital disruption will also be higher.
Tests on the effect of reactions to digital disruption on
sustainability banking performance that the reaction coefficient
on digital disruption is positive at 0.974 with a p-value of
0.0000 smaller when compared to α = 0.05 means the reaction
to digital disruption have a positive and significant effect
on sustainability banking performance. The positive effect
generated by the reaction coefficient on digital disruption
means that if the reaction to digital disruption is higher then
the sustainability of banking performance will also be higher.
Indirect effect
Test the effect of digital disruption on sustainable banking
performance mediated by the reaction to digital disruption
shows that there is a direct positive and significant effect of
digital disruption on the reaction to digital disruption with
a coefficient of 0.974 and also directly there is a positive
and significant effect on the reaction to digital disruption in
sustainability banking performance with a coefficient of 0.345
with a p-value of 0.0000 smaller than α = 0.05 so it can be
concluded that indirectly there is a positive and significant
effect of digital disruption on sustainable banking performance
mediated by reactions to digital disruption, this is indicated by
the value of the coefficient indirect effect of 0.33603 (0.974
X 0.345).








Discussion
The Influence of Information Technology Capability on
Sustainable Banking Performance.
The results of this study indicate that there is a positive and
significant influence of information technology capabilities
on sustainable banking performance. Human resource support
or commonly referred to as human capital is very important
for organizational improvement that is seen in organizational
performance. With the capability of information technology
that has competence and quality, it can effectively use new
information and communication technology and systems.
Information technology capability enhancements must
continue to be carried out routinely related to the type of
information technology used in the organization by organizing
or sending employees to training programs to use new
software, systems, and equipment and tools. Types of training
related to banking innovation are Digital Transformation
Management; Digital Payment - Application; Big Data -
Analytic Data; AI - Artificial Intelligent; API - Intelligent
Application Programming; Digital Marketing & Design
Thinking, Digital Disruption, Scrum, Design Thinking.
The information technology strategy undertaken by 54
banks must also be supported by the human dimension that
facilitates organizational learning as the main determinant of
information technology success. So, it is important to consider
the factors that influence human resources or human resources
when evaluating the contribution of information technology to
company performance. Supported by banking human capital
in the field of information technology will have an impact ontime
efficiency, effective service to consumers, and banks that
allocate funds in the information technology sector will tend
to attract investors to invest their funds in organizations so
that the impact of sustainable banking performance will be
better. The results of this study support the research conducted
by Gunsel and Tukel (2011), Mazidi et.al (2014), Turulja and
Bajgoric (2016) and Dantsoho and John (2017).
The effect of business innovation on sustainable banking
performance
The results of this study indicate that business innovation in
54 banks which are the objects of this study show no significant
effect on the performance of sustainable banks. This happens
because the digital-based products and services currently
available in 54 banks which are the object of research have been
implemented and have not experienced significant changes.
So the impact of business innovation on sustainable banking
performance is also insignificant. The business innovation that
was carried out did not have a significant impact on changes
in profits and expansion of market share, this is because the
characteristics of bank products and services tend to be the
same and have been applied for a long time for example
fund products (savings, current accounts, deposits) and loans
(consumptive, productive, commercial). Business model
innovation is a system-oriented approach; not only product
processes and innovations (Laukkanen and Patala, 2014; Peric
and Djurkin, 2014). Yip and Bocken (2018).
Today’s, business model innovations by banks use a system,
process and product-oriented approach. The system-oriented
business approach to banking is an intermediary which consists
of funds and loans. The approach oriented to the process of
interaction with customers, among others, through electronic
and digital means (m-banking, internet banking, sms banking)
and product innovation has also been carried out in the form
of access to a source of funds, namely the use of savings to
make payment transactions. As a payment instrument based on
the ownership of a customer’s savings account, its use is done
by directly debiting the account for payment of economic
obligations that arise. However, the application of systems,
processes and business products to banks in Indonesia did not
experience significant changes. This can be seen in the history
of the Indonesian banking business system with the channel
transaction model through savings by customers and the year
banks started using it in table 3. below:
Technological developments include fintech and blockchain
technology, booming crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending,
and the threat of rapid start-up can accelerate the innovation
process in the banking industry, because this to a certain
extent, facilitates dis-intermediation that threatens the banking
business traditional, but there are still banks that have not
adjusted to this change, for example, the Regional Development
Bank (BPD). So that the test results do not support hypothesis
2 in this study. This study supports the research conducted by
Yip and Bocken (2018) because the results indeed show that
banks are slow in doing business innovation, and contrary to the
results of research conducted by Turulja and Bajgoric (2016)
that banks are quick to respond to business changes including
information technology investments in the corporate strategy,
it will support the sustainability of banking performance.
Brynjolfsson and Hitt (2000) state that information






technology investment sometimes require greater investment
and more time in organizational change, but in this study, there
are still banks that allocate information technology investments
whose nominal value is less than Rp 1,000,000,000 so that it
causes limited infrastructure provision and the limitations in
creating digital-based products and services.
The Effects of Digital Disruption on Digital Disruption
Reaction
The digital disruption variable on digital disruption reaction
showed a positive and significant effect on 54 banks which were
the object of this study. This shows that the higher the digital
disruption, the higher the reaction to digital disruption. In 54
banks in this study reacted to digital disruption to overcome the
disruption effects related to banking operations by (1) banks
reacting boldly in terms of strategic transformation and digital
investment and (2) integrating digital efforts into corporate
strategy. This can be seen from the bank’s response in using
information technology support and dare to invest a budget
to support information technology infrastructure. The highest
budget allocation for information technology investment
from 54 banks is more than Rp. 25,000,000,000, while the
lowest is less than Rp. 1,000,000,000. With this investment,
value shows the high response of banks in adjusting banking
business activities with changes in information technology.
Digital tools used in supporting banking activities include
Digital Payment - Application; Big Data - Analytic Data;
Chatbot based AI - Artificial Intelligence; Digital Onboarding
- Opening Accounts, Biometric, IoT, RPA, Blockchain, Digital
Platform, Cloud Architecture, I-Banking and M Banking.
Increased use of digital information technology will be at
risk for the increasing disruption faced by banks. However,
digital disruption can be dealt with significantly because
banks integrate digital disruption in corporate strategies,
among others, with initiatives and actions towards digital
transformation by special divisions by (1) setting priorities
for digitizing models and business processes that can be done
by alternative development alone or synergize with vendors
(financial technology) and (2) change the company’s longterm
strategy to overcome digital disruption by increasing
the proportion of investment in information technology
infrastructure and digital capabilities (HR).
Effect of Digital Disruption Reaction on Sustainable
Banking Performance
A strong strategic reaction has a positive impact on company
performance because it encourages higher revenue growth
even though it cannot exceed competitors engaged in the
banking sector as well. Compared with the medium reaction
and not integrated into the company’s strategy will only have
a small impact on revenue growth if it is not integrated. This
is supported by the results of interviews with 7 top-level bank
management explaining that the awareness of the banking
industry with digital disruption is felt with rapid changes and
disrupting business presence, where disruption is not only
changing the way of doing business but business fundamentals.
One of them is shown by starting to emerge digital or fintech
financial companies that are starting to destroy the function of
banks little by little. To face the era of digital disruption, the
bank optimizes digital development supported by the use of
information technology and product/service innovations that
are in line with digital developments marked by improvements
in internet telecommunications infrastructure, high smartphone
penetration, increased millennial generation, changes in
consumer tastes and financial transaction innovations. In
anticipation of the disruption condition, banks have tried to
develop digital services by following the payment system
trend, namely ease of accessing savings accounts that can be
easily transacted through electronic channels. It is important
to prepare support that supports the readiness of banks in
the face of digital disruption, namely: up to date technology
systems that support business needs; operational support that
can manage transaction reconciliation settlements (transaction
settlement systems) and customer service units that conduct
direct interactions to ensure bank operations run as expected.
The digital mindset in management of information
technology by management as outlined in the RBB (Bank
Business Plan) which contains significant initiatives relating
to the implementation of digital technology to support the
business and operations of the bank. The top-level management
(Directors) provides strategic policy direction which is
understood that digital disruption must be anticipated by the
digital banking business plan which is the policy for shortterm
and long-term business development. The digital policy
is carried out by applying a digital mindset in every business
process development in each department, including evaluating
old business processes that are tailored to support new digital
capabilities. Digital technology has formed a new phenomenon
in which the existence of bank businesses is disrupted by the
presence of technology-based financial companies (fintech)
which are changing the business map of the financial industry
including banking. Digital transformation is the key to
maintaining the existence of bank businesses, the banking
sector must immediately think of the business style of startup
companies (start-ups) that offer the ease and convenience of
bank transactions through digital channel access.
Customer preferences determine the direction of anticipation
of banks facing digital disruption, with business strategies that
encourage incumbent or existing banks to try to change the
business model to be more adaptive. The use of smartphones
by customers is one of the main reasons for banks to focus on
developing features in the mobile banking application which is
a factor for retention and acquisition of new customers, where
increasing the number of users and number of transactions
will increase fee base income for banks. The tendency for the
bank’s future strategy is to become more adaptive, flexible and
agile in developing products/services according to the needs
and characteristics desired by customers.



The direction of service feature development is based
on input from social media, comments from Playstore user
applications, responses from customer services that interact
directly with customers and the requirements of related
parties/institutions in the payment system digital ecosystem.
Improving the process of product innovation and solutions
at the bank with a customer-centric approach. The mastery
and capability of digital technology are done by building a
culture of customer-centric product development that is agile
(agile adapt), which is to continue the initiation of product
development patterns to create a culture of customer-centric
product development, not product-centric development.
Banks will be faced with two things: ignoring disruption (ie
sticking to the main strategy) or embracing disruption and
blending in the current banking business strategy as explained
by Christensen (1997).
The results of this study support the research of Bughin &
Zeebroeck (2017) which explains that digital disruption has a
strong negative and significant effect on company performance.
The effect of digital disruption is very negative and significant
in companies that react weakly and react moderately. The
essence of this research is that companies respond quickly
and effectively and efficiently to digital disruption. As well
as supporting research conducted by Westerman et al. (2014),
which states that digital transformation leads to superior
business performance.
The Effect of Digital Disruption on Sustainable Banking
Performance Through Digital Disruption Reaction
The mediating effect of aligning strategies on the relationship
of reaction and performance shows positive results, meaning
that the 54 banks that were the object of research succeeded
in carrying out practices aimed at tackling digital disruption
and providing improvements to banking performance.
sustainable. This is supported by the results of interviews at
7 Top-level bank management explained that bank planning
in anticipating demands and changing business environment
due to digital disruption is by adapting to new developments
that support businesses in the digital age, collaborating with
support institutions and businesses that have capabilities
digital technology and cooperating with banks in the industry
to advance certain services/products. Bank synergy and
collaboration with fintech provide a good influence for new
digital product and service innovations. Ease of transactions
provided by applications developed by fintech (for example,
gojek with gopay) and collaboration with banks in providing
top-up features for electronic money through mobile banking,
become a solution digital transactions that can be used by
customers/customers in an integrated manner. New business
innovations are developed in collaboration with partners
from large institutions to digital startups. The strategy that
was advanced to deal with digital disruption in its main bank
was to innovate digital services according to market trends
and collaborate with the same digital services. The alternative
to facing the development of digital bank products/services
can form venture capital to be able to finance startups fintech
whose products/services are in line with the bank’s business
strategy, so that technology development efficiency, speed of
application system development and business models can be
better suited to the needs of customers/customers. The results
of this study support the research of Bughin and Zeebroeck
(2017) explaining that the mediating effect of digital disruption
reaction between digital disruption and performance is
positive meaning that if digital disruption can be significantly
mitigated when integrated into the company’s strategy then it
will further improve company performance.
Conclusion, Implications and Suggestions
Referring to the results of the analysis, several conclusions
can be drawn, namely: Directly the ability of IT and the
reaction to digital disruption have a positive and significant
effect on sustainable banking performance. But business
innovation has no significant effect on sustainable banking
performance. Digital disruption has a positive and significant
effect on digital disruption reaction. And indirectly there
is a positive and significant effect of digital disruption on
sustainable banking performance mediated by the reaction to
digital disruption.
Theoretical Implications.
In this research, the theoretical contribution of qualified
information technology capabilities will drive the achievement
of higher banking performance. Also, digital disruption
reaction is a mediating variable between digital disruption
and sustainable banking performance. If digital disruption
is higher then organizations must respond quickly and make
changes because these changes are strategies of competitive
advantage among similar businesses. The results of this
study indicate that the effects of digital disruption have a
positive and significant impact on companies that dare to
react and dare to respond to digital disruption to be included
in corporate strategy. This provides further confidence that
success in reacting to digital disruption will improve company
performance so that sustainable banking performance will be
better.
Managerial Implications
Referring to the research results obtained that:
1. The capability of information technology is very
important supported by digital capabilities and the support of
reliable human resources. Digital capability through reliable
information technology infrastructure will greatly support
banking operations, among others, to meet customer demands
to be able to transact banking 24 hours from anywhere, and
the efficiency of banking operations so that bank management
is advised to allocate an adequate budget for IT infrastructure
investment. Also, if there are limited sources of investment
budget to support it, banks can collaborate with existing digital
banking service providers to obtain costs that are appropriate



to the scale of the bank’s business but can still obtain digital
services that meet the demands of the banking industry.
Besides, human capital support is one of the benchmarks of
success in improving sustainable banking performance so that
banking management must conduct various developments
with training and dissemination of digital product/service
development to remain relevant to the development of digital
business, which if not carried out will have a negative impact
digital disruption will adversely affect bank performance. A
digital mindset that must be owned by every employee can
be explained that digital disruption is not only related to the
technology used, but also the work patterns and business
patterns of banks that utilize advances in digital technology.
2. Business innovations undertaken by banks which
are the objects of research do not have a significant impact
on sustainable banking performance, so that synergies and
collaborations with digital service providers outside banks
such as financial transaction aggregators and financial
technology startups that have grown to become a means for
banks to develop product innovations/service according to
current customer preferences. Banks need to open themselves
to synergize and collaborate by utilizing innovative ideas
from fintech companies from outside the bank that bring new
business models and business processes, which will get better
and more efficient by the development of digital technology.
As an institution that traditionally has fairly strict banking
business regulations, wherein Indonesia is overseen by Bank
Indonesia (BI) related to the payment system and Financial
Services Authority (OJK) related to bank products, the speed
of the process of licensing a bank service product needs to
be accelerated so that the speed of bank business innovation
can be comparable to new service products from financial
technology startups.
3. Digital disruption has a positive impact on the reaction
to digital disruption so that banks are expected to quickly and
appropriately integrate digital disruption into the company’s
strategy, among others, take the initiative and action on digital
transformation by special divisions by:
i. Make a priority scale for digitizing models and
business processes that can be done by alternatively developing
themselves or synergizing with vendors providing transaction
services and financial technology (fintech)
ii. Changing the company’s long-term strategy to
overcome digital disruption by increasing the proportion of
Information Technology infrastructure investment and digital
capabilities (HR).
4. A strong strategic reaction has a positive impact on the
performance of sustainable banking so that a digital mindset in
managing information technology is needed by management
as outlined in the RBB (Bank Business Plan) which contains
significant initiatives relating to:
i. Implementation of digital technology to support
business and bank operations, including developing business
processes in each department.
ii. Evaluation of old business processes that are adjusted
with the support of new digital capabilities that apply start-up
business style.
iii. Development of service features is based on social
media input, comments on Playstore user applications,
customer service responses that interact directly with
customers and the requirements of related parties/institutions
in the payment system digital ecosystem.
iv. Improving the process of product innovation and
solutions at the bank with a customer-centric approach. The
mastery and capability of digital technology are done by
building a culture of customer-centric product development
that is agile (agile adapt), which is to continue the initiation
of product development patterns to create a culture of
customer-centric product development, not product-centric
development.
5. The mediating effect of aligning strategies on the
relationship of reaction and performance shows positive
results. Bank planning in anticipating the demands and
changing business environment due to digital disruption is to
adapt to new developments that support business in the digital
era, including:
i. Collaborate with support institutions and businesses
that have digital technology capabilities such as switching
service provider technology aggregators for Indonesian
Standard QRIS (Quick Respond Code) transactions so
that bank customers can make payment transactions at any
merchants that are nationally incorporated.
ii. Co-operate with banks in the industry to advance
certain services/products such as using the GPN (National
Payment Gateway) transaction standard so that the bank
is incorporated in a system that connects various electronic
payments or non-cash transactions on debit cards or ATM
cards in one payment system that integrated.
iii. Bank synergy and collaboration with fintech such as
the utilization of electronic money top-up balances issued by
fintech by using various bank-owned electronic transaction
channels, namely ATM, mobile banking, sms banking and
internet banking, to provide a good influence for the innovation
of new digital products and services that people use every day.
Based on the research process and results, the following are
limitations and suggestions for future research.
1. The number of banks that succeeded in responding
to the filling out of questionnaires and interview interviews
was 54 banks out of a total of 112 banks in Indonesia when





they were conducted so that further research is expected to
conduct the same study in other financial institutions that
also use digital technology as a tool support the operational
activities of the organization in the hope that the findings can
be generalized throughout the financial services industry. Also,
future researchers must use more representative sampling
strategies to generalize their research findings.
2. Further research can also be carried out in industries
other than the banking industry and the financial services
industry so that the results of research related to digital
disruption of various industries can be seen in the variation
of results to get an understanding of the positive and negative
impacts as input to anticipatory responses that must be carried
out by companies which have existed in the industry for years.
3. Add research variables and relevant indicators that
theoretically affect the sustainability of banking performance
such as the example between Dynamic Information Technology
Capabilities (DITC) which is proxy through IT knowledge
creation, IT infrastructure flexibility, IT personnel expertise
and IT management capability (Dantsoho and John, 2017).





References

1. Adner, R. and R. Kapoor. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management
Journal, 37, 625–648.

2. Adner, R. and D. Snow. (2010). Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats. Industrial and Corporate Change 19/5, 1655-1675.

3. Aghion, Philippe, Howitt, Peter. (2007). Capital, innovation, and growth accounting. Oxford: Rev. Econ. Policy 23 (1), 79–93.

4. Ajlouni, Ahmed T.Al & Monir Al-hakim. (2018). Financial Technology in Banking Industry: Challenges and Opportunities. Presented in the International Conference on Economics and Administrative Sciences ICEAS 2018. published by: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331303690

5. Alexander, K. (2014). Stability and Sustainability in Banking Reform: Are Environmental Risks Missing in Basel III. CISL & UNEP FI: Cambridge
and Geneva.

6. Anderson, Mark C., Banker, Rajiv D., Ravindran, Sury (2006). Value implications of investments in information technology. Management
Science 52 (9), 1359–1376

7. Appiahene, Peter; Yaw Marfo Missah, Ussiph Najim. (2019). Evaluation of information technology impact on bank’s performance: The Ghanaian
experience. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, volume 11: 1–10. https://journals.sagepub.com

8. Aral, Sinan, Brynjolfsson, Erik, Wu, D.J. (2006). Which came first, IT of productivity? the virtuous cycle of investment and use in enterprise
systems. In: In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, pp. 1–22.


9. Avkiran, N. K., Morita, H. (2010). Benchmarking Firm Performance from a Multiple-Stakeholder Perspective with an Application to Chinese
banking, Omega. The International Journal of Management Science, 38, p. 501.

10. Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24 (1), 169-196.

11. Bircan, C., & Ralph de Haas. (2015). The Limits of Lending: Banks and Technology Adoption Across Russia. Center Discussion Paper; Vol. 2015-
011. Tilburg: Finance.

12. Bocken, N.M.P., Short, S.W., Rana, P., Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J.
Clean. Prod. 65, 42-56.

13. Bower, J. and C. Christensen. (1995). Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, January 1995, 43-53.

14. Bresnahan TF, Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM. 2002 Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level
evidence. Quart J Econ; 117(1):339–76.

15. Bocken, N., Short, S. (2015). Towards a sufficiency-driven business model: experiences and opportunities. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 18, 41-
61.

16. Bouwman, H.; Faber, E.; Van der Spek, J. (2005). Connecting future scenarios to business models of insurance intermediaries. In Proceedings
of the 18th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference, Bled, Slovenia, 6–8 June; Volume 16.

17. Brynjolfsson, Erik, Hitt, Lorin M. (2003). Computing productivity: firmlevel evidence. Rev. Econ. Stat. 85 (4), 793–808.

18. Brynjolfsson E, Hitt LM. (2000). Beyond computation: information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. J
Econ Perspect;14(4):23–48.

19. Bughin, Jacques; Nicolas van Zeebroeck. 2017. The case for offensive strategies in response to digital disruption. iCite Working Paper 2017 -
021

20. Calantone R, Cavusgil T and Zhao Y. (2002). “Learning Orientation, Firm Innovation Capability and Firm Performance”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 31, No. 6, pp. 515-524.

21. Case, P. (2012). Managing Sustainability risks and opportunities in the financial services sector - Non-Executive Directors Briefing. Available
from: https://www.pwc.com/en_JG/jg/publications/ned-sustainabilitypresentation-may-2012.pdf

22. Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R., Savona, M., 2006. Innovation and economic performance in services: a firm-level analysis. Camb. J. Econ. 30, 435–
458.

23. Chai, Bobby Boon-Hui, Pek See Tan, Thian Shong Go. (2016). Banking Services that Influence the Bank Performance. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 224, 401 – 407. Elsevier. www.sciencedirect.com

24. Chandy, R. and G. Tellis. (2000), the incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 64, 1-17.

25. Charitou, C. and C. Markides (2003), Responses to disruptive strategic innovation, MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(2), 55-64.

26. Christensen, C., and M. Overdorf. (2003). Meeting the challenger of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78, 66-76.

27. Christensen, C. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harvard Business School Press.

28. Cirera, Xavier; Silvia Muzi. (2016). Measuring Firm-Level Innovation Using Short Questionnaires. Policy Research Working Paper 7696. World
Bank Group.

29. Coulter, A., Roberts, S., Dixon, A. (2013). Delivering Better Services for People with Long-term Conditions: Building the House of Care. The
King’s Fund 2013. Available at: http://zelfzorgondersteund.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/

30. Christensen, C. (2006). The Ongoing Process of Building a Theory of Disruption, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 39-55.
31. Corrado, Carol, Charles R. Hulten and Daniel E. Sichel. (2005). “Measuring Capital and Technology: An Expanded Framework”, in C.
Corrado, J. Haltiwanger and D. Sichel (eds.) Measuring Capital in the New Economy, NBER Press.

32. Corrado, Carol A., Charles R. Hulten, Daniel E. Sichel. (2006). “Intangible Capital and Economic Growth,” NBER Working Papers 11948, National
Bureau of Economic Research.

33. Corrado, Carol, Jonathan Haskel, Cecilia Jona‐Lasinio and Massimiliano Iommi. (2011). “Intangible Capital and Growth in Advanced Economies:
Measurement Methods and Comparative Results”, INTANInvest.

34. David, Paul A. (1990). The dynamo and the computer: a historical perspective on the modern productivity paradox. Am. Econ. Rev. 80 (2),
35–61.

35. Dantsoho, Mohammed Aliyu; Hanmaikyur Tyoapine John. (2017). MAYFEB Journal of Business and Management, Vol 1 (2017) - Pages 6-15.

36. Dewan, Sanjeev, Kraemer, Kenneth L., 2000. Information technology and productivity: evidence from country-level data. Manage. Sci. 46 (4),
548–562.

37. Eccles, R.G and Serafeim, G. (2013). Sustainability in Financial Services is not about Being Green. Harvard Business Review, May 13, 2013.

38. Edgeman, R., Eskildsen, J. (2013). Socio-ecological innovation: strategic integration of innovation for sustainability and sustainable innovation.
In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organizational Learning, Bogota, Colombia,
pp. 114e,122.

39. Ernst & Young. (2013). Building a better working world together: EMEIA Financial Services Sustainability Report 2013. Available from: http://
www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-EMEIA-Financial-Services-Sustainability-Report-2013/$FILE/EY-EMEIA-FinancialServices-Sustainability-Report-2013.pdf

40. Evangelista, R., (2000). Sectoral patterns of technological change in services. Econ.Innov. New Technol. 9, 183–221.

41. Gelder, J.W.V. (2006). The do’s and don’ts of Sustainable Banking: A BankTrack Manual. BankTrack. Available from:http://www.banktrack.
org/download/the_dos_and_donts_of_sustainable_banking/061129_the_dos_and_donts_of_sustainable_banking_bt _m anual.pdf

42. Grandon, Elizabeth E., Pearson, J. Michael. (2004). Electronic commerce adoption: an empirical study of small and medium US businesses. Inf.
Manage. 42 (1),197–216.

43. Günsel, Ayşe, Ayça Tükel. (2011). Does Information Technology Capability Improve Bank Performance? Evidence From Turkey. International Journal of eBusiness and eGovernment Studies Vol 3, No 1,(2011). ISSN: 2146-0744

44. Goyal, Praveen.- Rahman, Zillur.- Kazmi, A. A. (2013), “Corporate Sustainability Performance and Firm Performance Research: Literature Review and Future Research Agenda”. Management Decision, Volume 51, Issue 2, p. 361-379.

45. Girotra, K., Netessine, S. (2013). OM forum-business model innovation for sustainability. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 15 (4), 537e544.

46. Hair, Joseph F.; William C. Black; Barry J. Babin; Rolph E. Anderson. 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th Edition. Person New International
Edition.

47. Hulten, Charles R. and Janet X. Hao. (2012), “The Role of Intangible Capital in the Transformation and Growth of the Chinese Economy”. NBER Working Papers, No.18405, September
48. Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli. (1993). “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences.” Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 53–70

49. Kane, G., D. Palmer, A. Phillips, D. Kiron and N. Buckley. (2015). Strategy, not Technology, Drives Digital Transformation, MIT Sloan
Management Review - Research Report

50. Karkowska, Renata. (2020). Business Model as a Concept of Sustainability in the Banking Sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 111; doi:10.3390/
su12010111.

51. Korzeb, Zbigniew and Reyes Samaniego-Medina. (2019). Sustainability Performance. A Comparative Analysis in the Polish Banking Sector.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 653; doi:10.3390/su11030653. www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

52. Kmieciak, Roman, Anna Michna, Anna Meczynska. (2012). “Innovativeness, empowerment and IT capability: evidence from SMEs”. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 112 Issue: 5, pp.707-728, https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211232280

53. Kuan, K., Chau, P. (2001). A perception-based model of EDI adoption in small businesses using technology–organization–environment framework.
Inf. Manage. 38 (8), 507–521.

54. Laukkanen, M., Patala, S., (2014). Analyzing barriers to sustainable business model innovations: innovation systems approach. Int. J. Innov.
Manag. 18 (06), 1440010.

55. Lin, B. W. (2007). Information technology capability and value creation: Evidence from the US banking industry. Technology in Society, 29,
93−106.

56. Lüdeke-Freund, F., Massa, L., Bocken, N., Brent, A., Musango, J., 2016. Business models for shared value. Netw. Bus. Sustain. S. Afr. 29.

57. Markides, C., Charitou, C. D. (2004). Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach. Academy of Management Executive, 18,
22-36.

58. Mazidi, Ahmad Reza Karimi; Alireza Amini; Meisam Latifi. The impact of information technology capability on firm performance; a focus on
employee-customer profit chain. Iranian Journal of Management Studies (IJMS) Vol. 7, No. 1, January 2014 pp. 95-120

59. Nosratabadi, Saeed; Gergo Pinter; Amir Mosavi; and Sandor Semperger. 2020. Sustainable Banking; Evaluation of the European Business Models.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 2314; doi:10.3390/su12062314

60. Olson, Eric M.; Stanley F. Slater & G. Tomas M. Hult. (2005). “The Performance Implications of Fit Among Business Strategy, Marketing Organization Structure, and Strategic Behavior.” Journal of Marketing,Vol. 69 (July 2005), 49–65.

61. Ozcelik, Funda; Burcu Avci Ozcuk. (2014). Evaluation of Banks’ Sustainability Performance in Turkey with Grey Relational Analysis. The
Journal of Accounting and Finance, July/2014.

62. Peric, M., Djurkin, J. (2014). Systems thinking and alternative business model for responsible tourist destination. Kybernetes 43 (3/4), 480e496.

63. Parnell, John A. (2010) “Strategic clarity, business strategy and performance”. Journal of Strategy and Management, Vol. 3 Issue: 4,
pp.304-324, https://doi.org/10.1108/17554251011092683

64. Parimo, Daleep. (2017). Human Capital Management in Banking Sector-A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Management (IJM),
Volume 8, Issue 6, Nov–Dec 2017, pp. 44–55.

65. Ramnarain, Taruna Devi, Mahdevi Tiagarassa Pillay. 2016. Designing Sustainable Banking Services: The Case of Mauritian Banks. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences 224 (2016) 483–490. Elsevier. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042816305080

66. Rad, Masoud Gholampour. (2017). Disruptive innovation in media industry ecosystem and need for improving managerial cognitive capabilities in
polymediation era. Cogent Business & Management (2017), 4: 1352183.https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1352183

67. Rajapathirana, R.P. Jayani & Yan Hui. (2018). Relationship between innovation capability, innovation type, and firm performance. Journal of
Innovation & Knowledge 3 (2018) 44–55. https://www.journals.elsevier. com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge
68. Revell, T. (2013). Triodos Bank. The Guide to Sustainable Banking 2013. Blue and Green Tomorrow. Available from: http://blueandgreentomorrow.
com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/guide-to-banking-2013-10MB.pdf


69. Rebai, Sonia; Mohamed Naceur Azaieza, Dhafer Saidaneb. (2012). Sustainable performance evaluation of banks using a multi-attribute utility
model: an application to French banks. Procedia Economics and Finance 2 (2012) 363 – 372. Elsevier; www.sciencedirect.com.

70. Rogers, J. (2013). How sustainability metrics help build trust in the financial sector. Greenbiz. Available from: http://www.greenbiz.com/
blog/2013/04/26/how-sustainability-metrics-helps-build-trust-financialsector

71. Romer, Paul M., (1990). Endogenous technological change. J. Polit. Econ.98 (5),71–102.

72. Scott, Susan V., John Van Reenen, Markos Zachariadis. 2017. The long term effect of digital innovation on bank performance: An empirical study
of SWIFT adoption in financial services. Research Policy 46 (2017) 984–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.010. www.elsevier.com/
locate/respol.

73. Stankeviciene, Jelena; Marta Nikonorova. (2014). Sustainable Value Creation in Commercial Banks during Financial Crisis. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences 110 (2014) 1197 – 1208. Elsevier, www.sciencedirect.com.

74. Straw, R. (2013). Sustainable Banking. Fokus Financial Services. Audit Committee News – KPMG. Ausgabe 40 / Q1 2013. http://www.kpmg.com/
CH/Documents/ACNews/pub-20121220-06-sustainable-banking-de.pdf

75. Stephens, B., Caplain, J., Montes, D., Siegel, M., (2012). Transformation of Banking: Forces, Implications and Actions. Financial Services. Available
at:https://www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/transformation-of-banking-forces.pdf. (Accessed 16 April
2019).

76. Thong, J.Y.L., Yap, C.S., Raman, K.S. (1996). Top management support, external expertise and information systems implementation in small
businesses. Inf.Syst. Res. 7 (2), 248–267.

77. Turulja, Lejla; Nijaz Bajgorić. 2016. Innovation and Information Technology Capability As Antecedents of Firms Success. Interdisciplinary
Description of Complex Systems 14(2), 148-156, 2016. DOI: 10.7906/indecs.14.2.4

78. Ursachi, George; Ioana Alexandra Horodnic; Adriana Zait. 2015. How reliable are measurement scales? External factors with indirect influence
on reliability estimators. Procedia Economics and Finance, 20 ( 2015 ) 679 – 686. www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia.

79. Visconti, Roberto Moro, Maria Cristina Quirici. (2014). The Impact of Innovation and technology on Microfinance Sustainable Governance.
International conference: “Corporate Governance: a Search for Advanced Standards in the Wake of Crisis” Milan, Italy, May 8. https://
www.researchgate.net/publication/263009671

80. Westerman, G., D. Bonnet and A. McAfee. (2014). Leading digital: Turning technology into business transformation. Harvard Business Press.

81. World Economic Forum. August 2017. Beyond Fintech: A Pragmatic Assessment Of Disruptive Potential In Financial Services.

82. Yip, Angus W.H., Nancy M.P. Bocken. (2018). Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174
(2018) 150e169. : www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro.

83. Zyadat, Ali Abdelfattah Zyadat. (2017). The Impact of Sustainability on the Financial Performance of Jordanian Islamic Banks. International
Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 9, No. 1; 2017. Canadian Center of Science and Education.

84. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20181115211807-78-346962/tiga-bank-raksasa-siapkan-dana-rp11-triliun-untuk-teknologi. Diakses 1
April 2019.

ARJ @ SOCIAL

openaccess

Testimonials

Indexing

Indexing