Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management and Financial Science, Khatam University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management and Financial Science, Khatam University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Master of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management and Financial Science, Khatam University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

With the accelerating digital transformation of the financial industry, FinTech innovations have reshaped traditional banking structures by introducing new technological capabilities, service delivery mechanisms, and competitive dynamics. As banks increasingly integrate FinTech solutions into their operational and strategic processes, they encounter a broad set of risks that stem from technological complexity, regulatory uncertainty, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and evolving customer expectations. These risks, if not properly identified and managed, can adversely affect financial stability, operational continuity, and institutional reputation. In emerging economies such as Iran, where digital transformation in banking is rapidly expanding, risk assessment becomes even more critical due to infrastructural constraints, regulatory gaps, and the heterogeneous maturity of financial technologies. Motivated by these challenges, this study conducts a comprehensive evaluation of major risks associated with FinTech adoption in Iranian banks, employing neutrosophic multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques to capture uncertainty, ambiguity, and expert judgment variability during risk assessment process.
Introduction
In recent years, the emergence of financial technologies (FinTech) has transformed the banking industry by enabling innovative financial services, reshaping business models, and changing customer expectations. While FinTech offers greater accessibility and efficiency, it also introduces new challenges for financial institutions, including heightened competitive pressure and disruptions to traditional banking operations. Although many studies highlight the positive contribution of FinTech to banking performance, others emphasize the potential negative consequences, such as reduced profitability due to competition from digital lending and investment platforms. In addition, risks such as cybersecurity threats, regulatory compliance issues, operational failures, data privacy concerns, technological dependency, and challenges in customer trust have become major barriers to FinTech adoption. Given these complexities, a systematic and structured assessment of FinTech-related risks is essential, particularly in developing countries where digital transformation is rapidly progressing but regulatory and infrastructural limitations persist. This study seeks to address this research gap by offering a comprehensive, uncertainty-aware evaluation of the critical risks influencing FinTech adoption in banks.
Methodology
This study adopts a hybrid neutrosophic multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework to identify, validate, and prioritize key risks associated with FinTech adoption. First, an extensive literature review was conducted to extract potential risk factors highlighted in previous academic and industry reports. Next, the neutrosophic Delphi method was applied to refine and validate these factors based on expert consensus under uncertainty. Through this process, seven major risks were confirmed: security, credit, operational, strategic and competitive, legal and regulatory, reputational, and liquidity risks. Subsequently, the neutrosophic Best–Worst Method (BWM) was employed to determine the relative importance of these risks, enabling more accurate modeling of expert judgment hesitation and ambiguity. Finally, to evaluate potential FinTech implementation options for Pasargad Bank, the neutrosophic Multi-Attributive Border Approximation Area Comparison (MABAC) method was used. This integrated approach makes it possible to capture the complexity and uncertainty inherent in technological risk assessment.
Results and Discussion
The results of the BWM analysis indicate that security risk holds the highest importance in the context of FinTech adoption, reflecting the increased sensitivity of digital transactions and the potential for cyberattacks, data breaches, and system intrusions. Operational and reputational risks ranked next, underscoring the significance of system reliability and customer trust in digital financial environments. These findings are consistent with existing studies that emphasize the dominant role of cybersecurity threats in shaping FinTech outcomes.
In terms of implementation strategies, the MABAC analysis reveals that the scenario involving collaboration among banks to form a FinTech consortium holds the highest priority. This strategy supports resource sharing, cost reduction, and the development of standardized and secure financial technologies. Moreover, it enables banks to pool expertise and strengthen resilience against technological and regulatory uncertainties. For Pasargad Bank, the results suggest that focusing on robust security practices, operational risk management, and reputation preservation is essential to ensuring successful and low-risk FinTech implementation. The findings also align with international evidence indicating that collaborative and partnership-based FinTech models yield more sustainable and resilient outcomes in uncertain environments.
Conclusion
This study contributes to the FinTech risk literature by providing a structured and uncertainty-aware assessment of the major risks influencing FinTech adoption in banking. The proposed hybrid neutrosophic MCDM framework—combining Delphi, BWM, and MABAC—offers a more realistic modeling environment for capturing ambiguity, incomplete information, and expert hesitation. According to the results, security risk represents the most critical concern for banks in their FinTech implementation efforts, followed by operational and reputational risks. The findings also highlight the strategic value of interbank collaboration, suggesting that forming a FinTech consortium is the most advantageous and least risky implementation scenario for Pasargad Bank.
The insights from this study have practical implications for bank managers and policymakers. Banks should establish specialized FinTech risk management units, invest in advanced cybersecurity infrastructure, strengthen digital operational capabilities, and enhance customer awareness programs. Furthermore, closer engagement with regulators is required to ensure compliance and foster a supportive regulatory environment. Future research may expand this study by incorporating time-series data on risk events, exploring emerging technologies such as AI and blockchain, and conducting comparative analyses across multiple banks or countries to develop more generalizable insights.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Abdel-Basset, M., Saleh, M., Gamal, A., Smarandache, F., (2019). An approach of TOPSIS technique for developing supplier selection with group decision making under type-2 neutrosophic number. Appl. Soft Comput. 77, 438–452. doi:1016/j.asoc.2019.01.035
  2. Alaassar, A., Mention, AL. & Aas, T.H. (2023) Facilitating innovation in FinTech: a review and research agenda. Rev Manag Sci,17, 33–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00531-x.
  3. Al-Mawali, H., Obeidat, Z.M., Alshurafat, H., Al-Shbail, M.O., (2023), Identifying and ranking the critical success factors of fintech adoption: a fuzzy DEMATEL approach, Competitiveness Review, 35(2), 286-318, https://doi-org.access.semantak.com/10.1108/CR-04-2023-0090
  4. AlMomani, A.A., Alomari, K.F. (2021), Financial Technology (FinTech) and its Role in Supporting the Financial and Banking Services Sector, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 8, 2021, pp. 1793-1802. doi:10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i8/10625.
  5. Al-Shari, H.A., Lokhande, M.A. (2023), The relationship between the risks of adopting FinTech in banks and their impact on the performance, Cogent Business & Management, 10: 2174242. doi: 1080/23311975.2023.2174242.
  6. Arkanuddin, M.F., Saragih, F.D., Nugroho, B.Y. (2021), The Key Role of the Financial Regulation in FinTech Ecosystem: A Model Validation, 39(12), doi: 25115/eea.v39i12.6239.
  7. Asif, M., Lodhi, R.N., Sarwar, F., Ashfaq, M. (2023), Dark side whitewashes the benefits of FinTech innovations: a bibliometric overview, International Journal of Bank Marketing, 42(1), 113-132. doi: 1108/IJBM-10-2022-0438.
  8. Barroso, M. & Labordo, J., (2022). Digital transformation and the emergence of the Fintech sector: systematic literature review. Digital Business, 2(2), 100028. doi:10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100028.
  9. Bartolacci,. F, Cardoni,. A, Asak,. P.A. Sadkowski,. W. (2022), An analytical framework for strategic alliance formation between a cooperative bank and a fintech start-up: An Italian case study, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, vol. 18, issue 4, 115-156. doi: 7341/20221844.
  10. Bhatnagar, M., Özen, E., Taneja, S., Grima, S., & Rupeika-Apoga, R. (2022). The Dynamic Connectedness between Risk and Return in the Fintech Market of India: Evidence Using the GARCH-M Approach. Risks10(11), 209. doi: 3390/risks10110209.
  11. Campanella F, Serino L, & Crisci A. (2022). “Governing fintech for sustainable development: evidence from Itlian banking system”. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets. in Press. doi:1108/QRFM-01-2022-0009.
  12. Cheng, A. (2023), Evaluating Fintech industry's risks: A preliminary analysis based on CRISP-DM framework, Finance Research Letters, 55, 103966. Doi: 1016/j.frl.2023.103966.
  13. Deng, L., Lv, Y., Liu, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2021). Impact of Fintech on Bank Risk-Taking: Evidence from China. Risks9(5), 99. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks9050099.
  14. Deveci, M., Erdogan, N., Cali, U., Stekli, J., Zhong, S. (2021 Type-2 neutrosophic number based multi-attributive border approximation area comparison (MABAC) approach for offshore wind farm site selection in USA, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 103: 104311. Doi: 1016/j.engappai.2021.104311.
  15. Dezem, V., Sachan, S., Macedo, M. et al. (2024) Optimal data-driven strategy for in-house and outsourced technological innovations by open banking APIs. Futur Bus J 10, 116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00397-3.
  16. Dragan, I., Fortiș, TF., Neagul, M., Petcu, D., Selea, T., Spataru, A. (2018). Application Blueprints and Service Description. In: Lynn, T., Morrison, J., Kenny, D. (eds) Heterogeneity, High Performance Computing, Self-Organization and the Cloud. Palgrave Studies in Digital Business & Enabling Technologies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. doi:1007/978-3-319-76038-4_4.
  17. Duran, R., Griffin, P. (2019), Smart contracts: will Fintech be the catalyst for the next global financial crisis? Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance29(1):104-122. doi:1108/JFRC-09-2018-0122.
  18. Ediagbonya, V. & Tioluwani, C., 2022. The role of fintech in driving financial inclusion in developing and emerging markets: issues, challenges and prospects. Technological Sustainability. 2(1), 100-119. doi: 1108/TECHS-10-2021-0017.
  19. Falcón, V. V., Martínez, B. S., & Sánchez, F. C. (2020). Experts’ Selection for Neutrosophic Delphi Method. A Case Study of Hotel Activity. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 37(1), 115-124. Doi: 5281/zenodo.4122045.
  20. Fang, Y., & Wen, G. (2024). Stability Analysis of Innovation Collaboration between Commercial Banks and Fintech Companies. Mathematics, 12(17), 2724. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12172724.
  21. Guo, S., & Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications. Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23-31. doi: 1016/j.knosys.2017.01.010.
  22. Hornuf, L., Klus, M.F., Lohwasser, T.S. et al. How do banks interact with fintech startups?. Small Bus Econ 57, 1505–1526 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00359-3.
  23. Hughes, J. P., Jagtiani, J., & Moon, C. G. (2022). Consumer lending efficiency: Commercial banks versus a fintech lender. Financial Innovation, 8(1), 1-39. doi:1186/s40854-021-00326-1.
  24. Idayani, R.W., Nadlifatin, R., Subriadi, A.P., Gumasing, M.J., 2024. A comprehensive review on how cyber risk will affect the use of Fintech. Procedia Computer Science, 234, 1356–1363. doi: 1016/j.procs.2024.03.134.
  25. Javaheri, D., Fahmideh, M., Chizari, H., Lalbakhsh, P., Hur, J. (2024), Cybersecurity threats in FinTech: A systematic review, Expert Systems with Application, 241(1), 122697. Doi: 1016/j.eswa.2023.122697.
  26. Kou, G., et al. (2021). Fintech investments in European banks: a hybrid IT2 fuzzy multidimensional decision-making approach. Financial Innovation, 7(1), 39. doi:1186/s40854-021-00256-y
  27. Kwon, K. Y., Molyneux, P., Pancotto, L., & Reghezza, A. (2023). Banks and FinTech Acquisitions. Journal of Financial Services Research. 65, 41–75. doi:10.1007/s10693-022-00396-x
  28. Leong, K., Sung, A. (2018), FinTech (Financial Technology): What is It and How to Use Technologies to Create Business Value in Fintech Way?, International Journal of Innovation Management and Technology, doi:18178/ijimt.2018.9.2.791.
  29. Ng, E., Pan, S., 2022. Competitive strategies for ensuring Fintech platform performance: Evidence from multiple case studies. Information Systems Journal. 34(3): 616-641. Doi: 1111/isj.12406.
  30. Pamučar, D., Ćirović, G. (2015) The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC), Expert Systems with Applications, 42(6), 3016-3028. doi: 1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057.
  31. Pi, T.; Hu, H.; Lu, J.; Chen, X. (2022), The Analysis of Fintech Risks in China: Based on Fuzzy Models. Mathematics, 10, 1395. doi: 3390/math10091395.
  32. Rezaei, J (2016), Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model, Omega, 64, 126-130. Doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001.
  33. Riemer, K., Hafermalz, E., Roosen, A., Boussand, N., El Aoufi, H., Mo, D. & Kosheliev,A., (2017). The Fintech Advantage: Harnessing digital technology, keeping the customer in focus. University of Sydney, Business School and Capgemini. Sydney, Australia. http://hdl.handle.net/2123/16259
  34. Schuffel, P. (2016). Taming the Best: A scientific definition of Fintech, Journal of Innovation Management, 4(4), 32-54. doi: 2139/ssrn.3097312.
  35. Sigcha, K. V. A., Basantes, E. M. L., Martinez, L. Y. C., & Cagin, T. (2024). Neutrosophic Delphi for evaluating sustainability models of native and non-native digital media. International Journal of Neutrosophic Science (IJNS)24(4), 59–70. . doi: 10.54216/IJNS.240404
  36. Suryono, R. R., Budi, I. & Purwandari, B., (2020). Challenges and trends of financial technology (Fintech): a systematic literature review. Information, 11(12), 590. doi: 3390/info11120590.
  37. Tanaji, B.A., Roychowhury, S. (2024), BWM Integrated VIKOR method using Neutrosophic fuzzy sets for cybersecurity risk assessment of connected and autonomous vehicles, Applied Soft Computing, 159, 111628. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2024.111628.
  38. Thakor, A.V. (2020). “Fintech and banking: What do we know?”. Journal of Financial Intermediation. 41(3): 100833. doi: 1016/j.jfi.2019.100833.
  39. Vafadarnikjoo, A., Mishra, N., Govindan, K., & Chalvatzis, K. (2018). Assessment of consumers' motivations to purchase a remanufactured product by applying Fuzzy Delphi method and single valued neutrosophic sets. Journal of cleaner production, 196, 230-244. Doi: 1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.037.
  40. Wibowo, S., Grandhi, L., Grandhi, S., & Wells, M. (2022). A Fuzzy Multicriteria Group Decision Making Approach for Evaluating and Selecting Fintech Projects. Mathematics, 10(2), 225. Doi:3390/math10020225
  41. Xue, Y.X., You, J.X., Lai, X.D., Liu,H.C. (2016), An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy MABAC approach for material selection with incomplete weight information, Applied Soft Computing, 38, 703-713, doi:1016/j.asoc.2015.10.010.
  42. Zalan, T. – Toufaily, E. (2017): The Promise of Fintech in Emerging Markets: Not as Disruptive. Contemporary Economics, 11(4): 415–430. doi:5709/ce.1897-9254.253
  43. Zhao, H., Khaliq, N. (2024), In quest of perceived risk determinants affecting intention to use fintech: Moderating effects of situational factors, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 207, 123599. Doi: 1016/j.techfore.2024.123599
  44. Zhao, K. (2021), Comparative Bank Financial Risk Management Models in Fintechs and Challenger Banks, A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Sheffield Hallam University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, England. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/28916/
  45. Ahmadian, A., Ghilich, V. (2022), The impact of FinTech on financial stability according to the size, type of ownership, and degree of financial stability of banks, Journal of Monetary and Banking Research, 16(56), 199-232. [In Persian]
  46. Hejazi, S. R., Seyyedamiri, N. and Shokouhi Bidhandi, M. (2023). Designing a Process Model of Fintech Platforms’ Survival. Media Management Review, 2(1), 3-31. doi: 10.22059/mmr.2023.92995. [In Persian]
  47. Payandeh, R., Manteghi, M. and Shahbazi, M. (2021). Exploring and Discovering Collaboration Patterns Between Iranian Banks and FinTech. Innovation Management Journal10(1), 161-188. [In Persian]
  48. Rahimi, R., Sarraf, F., Jafari, M., & Safavi, B. (2023). Investigating the relationship between the implementation of fintech technologies and systemic risks in the banking network. Economics and Business Research Journal, 14 (28), 45–74. [In Persian]