Digital sustainability positively impacts stakeholder satisfaction in Jordanian banking. This study reveals that artificial intelligence significantly enhances this relationship. Strategic AI integration amplifies the benefits of digital sustainability for all stakeholders.
Objective
This study investigates how artificial intelligence acts as a moderator in the relationship between digital sustainability and stakeholders’ satisfaction to provide insights for building sustainable digital synergies in Jordanian commercial banks.
Methods
The study employed an analytical quantitative methodology. Data were collected via an electronically structured questionnaire distributed to a sample of 230 upper- and middle-level managers in the head offices of 12 Jordanian commercial banks, resulting in 188 valid responses. The hypotheses were evaluated using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with Partial Least Squares (PLS) estimation in SmartPLS 4.1.
Results
The study’s findings indicate that digital sustainability positively affects stakeholder satisfaction, with artificial intelligence acting as a significant moderator. Specifically, digital sustainability practices—encompassing digital economic sustainability, digital social sustainability, and digital environmental sustainability—enhance the satisfaction of key stakeholder groups, including employees, suppliers, and customers. Furthermore, the adoption of artificial intelligence strengthens the relationship between digital sustainability and stakeholder satisfaction, demonstrating a synergistic effect that amplifies the positive impact of digital sustainability initiatives.
Conclusion
AI enhances the positive impact of digital sustainability on stakeholder satisfaction in Jordanian banks. Integrating AI into sustainability practices is key to maximizing stakeholder contentment. This study encourages Jordanian banks to strategically combine AI and digital sustainability for optimal results.
CurleyMSalmelinB. Open innovation 2.0: the new mode of digital innovation for prosperity and sustainability. Springer, 2018.
2.
WutTMLeeDIpWM, et al.Digital sustainability in the organization: scale development and validation. Sustainability2021; 13(6): 3530.
3.
NuthakkiSKumarSKulkarniCS, et al.Role of AI enabled smart meters to enhance customer satisfaction. Int J Comput Sci Mobile Comput2022; 11(12): 99–107.
4.
FreemanRE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, 1984.
5.
DonaldsonTPrestonLE. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manag Rev1995; 20(1): 65–91.
6.
GaziMAIRahamanMAHossainG, et al.An empirical study of determinants of customer satisfaction of banking sector: evidence from Bangladesh. J Asian Finance Econ Bus2021; 8(2): 497–503.
7.
CachoperoMMAbatayoPADiolasoYM, et al.Employee satisfaction in Midsayap's banking industry: deciphering the impact of organizational atmosphere and internal factors. Psychol Educ Multidiscip J2023; 16(1): 139–151.
8.
JoseJMAithalPS. An analytical study of applications of artificial intelligence on banking practices. Int J Manag Technol Soc Sci2023; 8(2): 133–144.
9.
LutfiAAl-OkailyMAlshirahMH, et al.Digital financial inclusion sustainability in Jordanian context. Sustainability2021; 13(11): 6312.
10.
KiddCV. The evolution of sustainability. J Agric Environ Ethics1992; 5: 1–26.
11.
StuermerMAbu-TayehGMyrachT. Digital sustainability: basic conditions for sustainable digital artifacts and their ecosystems. Sustain Sci2017; 12: 247–262.
12.
HopwoodBMellorMO'BrienG. Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustain Dev2005; 13(1): 38–52.
13.
DrexhageJMurphyD. Sustainable development: from Brundtland to Rio 2012. United Nations Headquarters, 2010.
14.
StandingCJacksonP. An approach to sustainability for information systems. J Syst Inf Technol2007; 9(2): 167–176.
15.
ElkingtonJ. Enter the triple bottom line. In: The triple bottom line. Routledge, 2013.
16.
FiggeFHahnTSchalteggerS, et al.The sustainability balanced scorecard: linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus Strat Environ2002; 11(5): 269–284.
17.
PhamDCDoTNADoanTN, et al.The impact of sustainability practices on financial performance: empirical evidence from Sweden. Cogent Bus Manag2021; 8(1): 1–19.
18.
NormanWMacDonaldC. Getting to the bottom of “triple bottom line”. Bus Ethics Q2004; 14(2): 243–262.
19.
ChowdhuryG. Sustainability of digital information services. J Doc2013; 69(5): 602–622.
20.
MollaA. GITAM: a model for the adoption of Green IT. Inf Syst Manag2008; 25(4): 353–368.
21.
KhuntiaJSaldanhaTJMithasS, et al.Information technology and sustainability: evidence from an emerging economy. Prod Oper Manag2018; 27(4): 756–773.
22.
AliyevAG. Technologies ensuring the sustainability of information security in the formation of the digital economy and their prospective development directions. Int J Inf Eng Electron Bus2022; 14(5): 1–14.
23.
BrynjolfssonEMcAfeeA. The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W. W. Norton & Company, 2014.
24.
KarAKIlavarasanVGuptaMP, et al.Moving beyond smart cities: digital nations for social innovation & sustainability. Inf Syst Front2019; 21: 495–501.
25.
NosratabadiSAtobishiTHegedűsS. Social sustainability of digital transformation: empirical evidence from EU-27 countries. Adm Sci2023; 13(5): 126.
26.
AllcottHGentzkowM. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J Econ Perspect2017; 31(2): 211–236.
27.
FerozAKZoHChiravuriA. Digital transformation and environmental sustainability: a review and research agenda. Sustainability2021; 13(3): 1530.
28.
BelkhirLElmeligiA. Assessing ICT global emissions: trends to 2040 and strategies for mitigation. Telecommun Policy2019; 43(9): 101827.
29.
BaurVEVan ElterenAHNierseCJ, et al.Dealing with distrust and power dynamics: asymmetric relations among stakeholders in responsive evaluation. Evaluation2010; 16(3): 233–248.
30.
LiTHNgSTSkitmoreM. Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: a fuzzy approach. Autom ConStruct2013; 29: 123–135.
31.
GüngörDÖGözlüS. Investigating the relationship between activities of project management offices and project stakeholder satisfaction. Int J Inf Technol Proj Manag2017; 8(2): 34–49.
32.
GregoryK. The importance of employee satisfaction. J Div Bus Inf Manag2011; 5: 29–37.
33.
KurdiBAlshuridehMAlnaserA. The impact of employee satisfaction on customer satisfaction: theoretical and empirical underpinning. Manag Sci Lett2020; 10(15): 3561–3570.
34.
SageerARafatSAgarwalP. Identification of variables affecting employee satisfaction and their impact on the organization. IOSR J Bus Manag2012; 5(1): 32–39.
35.
DegirmenGCOzbeyDOSardagıE, et al.How does digital transformation moderate green culture, job satisfaction, and competitive advantage in sustainable hotels?Sustainability2024; 16(18): 8072.
36.
VosFGSchieleHHüttingerL. Supplier satisfaction: explanation and out-of-sample prediction. J Bus Res2016; 69(10): 4613–4623.
37.
LückerD. Drivers and benefits of supplier satisfaction in a buyer-supplier relationship: a multiple case study at company X and three of its suppliers [Bachelor’s thesis]. University of Twente, 2017.
38.
RomagnoliSTarabuCMaleki VishkaeiB, et al.The impact of digital technologies and sustainable practices on circular supply chain management. Logistics2023; 7(1): 1.
39.
ZaidSPalilatiAMadjidR, et al.The effect of supply chain integration on customer loyalty: the mediating roles of operational performance and customer satisfaction. Uncertain Supply Chain Manag2021; 9(4): 867–876.
40.
FornellC. A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience. J Mark1992; 56(1): 6–21.
41.
YapBWRamayahTShahidanWNW. Satisfaction and trust on customer loyalty: a PLS approach. Bus Strategy Ser2012; 13(4): 154–167.
42.
Marin-GarciaAGil-SauraIRuiz-MolinaME. Do innovation and sustainability influence customer satisfaction in retail? A question of gender. Econ Res-Ekon Istraživanja2022; 35(1): 546–563.
43.
KhalufiNAMSheikhRAKhanSMFA, et al.Evaluating the impact of sustainability practices on customer relationship quality: an SEM-PLS approach to align with SDG. Sustainability2025; 17(2): 798.
44.
AndroodSHBabakhanMBirokiN, et al.Sustainability-related impacts of digitalization on supply chain management. Eng Proc2024; 76(1): 25.
45.
SharmaS. Benefits or concerns of AI: a multistakeholder responsibility. Futures2024; 157: 103328.
46.
ParkC. Addressing challenges for the effective adoption of artificial intelligence in the energy sector. Sustainability2025; 17(13): 5764.
47.
SestinoADe MauroA. Leveraging artificial intelligence in business: implications, applications and methods. Technol Anal Strateg Manag2021; 34(1): 16–29.
48.
Jordanian Banks Association. The growing role of artificial intelligence in banking: global updates and a look at Jordanian banks. Jordanian Banks Association, 2024.
49.
LoureiroSMCGuerreiroJTussyadiahI. Artificial intelligence in business: state of the art and future research agenda. J Bus Res2021; 129: 911–926.
50.
RayAR. Analytical study of artificial intelligence and financial analytics for stakeholders satisfaction. Int J Innov Sci Eng Manag2024; 237–242.
51.
DwivediYKHughesLIsmagilovaE, et al.Artificial Intelligence (AI): multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. Int J Inf Manag2021; 57: 101994.
52.
FloridiLCowlsJBeltramettiM, et al.AI4People—an ethical framework for a good AI society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds Mach2018; 28(4): 689–707.
53.
BinnsRVan KleekMVealeM, et al.“It’s reducing a human being to a percentage”: perceptions of justice in algorithmic decisions. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Montreal, Canada, 21 Apr 2018. ACM, 2018, pp. 1–14.
54.
WirtzJPattersonPGKunzWH, et al.Brave new world: service robots in the frontline. J Serv Manag2018; 29(5): 907–931.
55.
HajiheydariNKargar ShourakiMVaresH, et al.Digital sustainable business model innovation: applying dynamic capabilities approach (DSBMI-DC). Foresight2023; 25(3): 420–447.
56.
KuntsmanARattleI. Towards a paradigmatic shift in sustainability studies: a systematic review of peer reviewed literature and future agenda setting to consider environmental (Un) sustainability of digital communication. Environ Commun2019; 13(5): 567–581.
57.
SamuelGLuciveroFSomavillaL. The environmental sustainability of digital technologies: stakeholder practices and perspectives. Sustainability2022; 14(7): 1–14.
58.
SparvieroSRagneddaM. Towards digital sustainability: the long journey to the sustainable development goals 2030. Digit Policy Regul Gov2021; 23(3): 216–228.
59.
SzalkowskiGAJohansenC. Defining and measuring the effects of digital technologies on social sustainability: a systematic literature review. Sustain Dev2024; 32(3): 1678–1699.
60.
ZhangJLiuM. How to leverage digital sustainability orientation to promote environmentally sustainable practices of manufacturing enterprises in China. Sustainability2024; 16(12): 1–20.
61.
AkgünMÖztaşS. Performance prism model and stakeholder satisfaction dimensions. J Appl Res Finance Econ2017; 3(1): 1–9.
62.
AliMAShiraziSZ. Islamic banking stakeholders’ satisfaction: perspectives of employees and customers. Int J Islam Bus Adm Soc Sci2024; 4(1): 1–24.
63.
CicchettoAAMartinsGH. Performance assessed by stakeholders’ satisfaction and predicted by organizational culture. Rev Psicol Organ Trab2023; 23(4): 2684–2695.
64.
Fernández-PortilloARamos-VecinoNRamos-MariñoA, et al.How the digital business ecosystem affects stakeholder satisfaction: its impact on business performance. Rev Manag Sci2024; 18: 2643–2662.
65.
FonsecaLRamosARosaÁL, et al.Stakeholders satisfaction and sustainable success. Int J Ind Syst Eng2016; 24(2): 144–157.
SarstedtMRingleCMHairJF. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In: Handbook of market research. Springer, 2017.
68.
GuitartMAPalomoZRJ. Digital inability and social sustainability in the face of the fourth industrial revolution: a proposal of new non-financial indicators. Sustainability2021; 13(24): 13958.
69.
PuriwatWTripopsakulS. The impact of digital social responsibility on preference and purchase intentions: the implication for open innovation. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex2021;7(1): 24.
70.
YousafZRadulescuMSinisiCI, et al.Towards sustainable digital innovation of SMEs from the developing countries in the context of the digital economy and frugal environment. Sustainability2021; 13(10): 5715.
71.
AlzaidiAA. Impact of artificial intelligence on performance of banking industry in Middle East. Int J Comput Sci Netw Secur2018; 18(10): 140–148.
72.
MasekeBF. The transformative power of artificial intelligence in banking client service. South Asian J Soc Stud Econ2024; 21(3): 93–105.
73.
ÖztürkRKulaV. A general profile of artificial intelligence adoption in banking sector: a survey of banks in Afyonkarahisar province of Turkey. J Corp Gov Insur Risk Manag2021; 8(2): 146–157.
74.
SarstedtMRingleCMHairJF. Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In: Handbook of market research. Springer, 2022.
75.
ShaikASNazrulAAlshibaniSM, et al.Environmental and economical sustainability and stakeholder satisfaction in SMEs: critical technological success factors of big data analytics. Technol Forecast Soc Change2024; 204.
76.
BorghiMMarianiMM. Asymmetrical influences of service robots’ perceived performance on overall customer satisfaction: an empirical investigation leveraging online reviews. J Trav Res2024; 63(5): 1086–1111.
