Abstract
This article presents the empirical findings of a primary survey conducted on a sample of 100 banking service
consumers in Romania, analyzing three interconnected dimensions: comparative trust (human operator vs. AI system),
perceived explainability of AI-based banking decisions, and perceived algorithmic control (accountability). The study
connects consumer behavior research with strategic management theory, positioning these three dimensions as
constituent elements of an emerging strategic capability—algorithmic governance—that drives competitive advantage
in digitized banking markets. Building on the resource-based view, dynamic capabilities theory, and stakeholder
capitalism frameworks, the article argues that banks' ability to build consumer trust through transparent and
contestable AI systems constitutes a value-generating and hard-to-imitate organizational capability. Empirical results
reveal a strong preference for human operators (77%), moderate uncertainty regarding AI decision transparency
(mean Q1 = 3.94/7, not significantly different from the scale midpoint), and a strongly positive perceived contestability
(mean Q2 = 5.59/7, with 75% of respondents clustered in the upper three scale positions)—indicating that Romanian
banking consumers are broadly aware of their recourse rights, even as they remain skeptical of AI decision-making
authority and uncertain about AI transparency. These findings carry direct implications for AI governance strategy,
competitive positioning, and ESG alignment in the Romanian banking sector.
consumers in Romania, analyzing three interconnected dimensions: comparative trust (human operator vs. AI system),
perceived explainability of AI-based banking decisions, and perceived algorithmic control (accountability). The study
connects consumer behavior research with strategic management theory, positioning these three dimensions as
constituent elements of an emerging strategic capability—algorithmic governance—that drives competitive advantage
in digitized banking markets. Building on the resource-based view, dynamic capabilities theory, and stakeholder
capitalism frameworks, the article argues that banks' ability to build consumer trust through transparent and
contestable AI systems constitutes a value-generating and hard-to-imitate organizational capability. Empirical results
reveal a strong preference for human operators (77%), moderate uncertainty regarding AI decision transparency
(mean Q1 = 3.94/7, not significantly different from the scale midpoint), and a strongly positive perceived contestability
(mean Q2 = 5.59/7, with 75% of respondents clustered in the upper three scale positions)—indicating that Romanian
banking consumers are broadly aware of their recourse rights, even as they remain skeptical of AI decision-making
authority and uncertain about AI transparency. These findings carry direct implications for AI governance strategy,
competitive positioning, and ESG alignment in the Romanian banking sector.
Cuvinte cheie
algorithmic trust
explainability
contestability
strategic capability
AI governance
dynamic capabilities
banking strategy.
Istoric articol
Publicat
26.06.2026
Informații autori
Citare recomandată
VALENTIN MANGIUREA, LUCIAN CLAUDIU ANGHEL (2026). ALGORITHMIC TRUST, EXPLAINABILITY, AND CONTESTABILITY AS STRATEGIC CAPABILITIES IN BANKING: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM ROMANIA. Constantin Brâncuși University of Târgu Jiu Economics Series, 1(3), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.65631/jes.3.2026.19
Referințe bibliografice
[1] Atz, U., Van Holt, T., Liu, Z. Z., and Bruno, C. C., Does sustainability generate better financial performance? Review, meta-analysis, and propositions, Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 802–825, 2023.
[2] Barney, J., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99–120, 1991.
[3] Binns, R., Van Kleek, M., Veale, M., Lyngs, U., Zhao, J., and Shadbolt, N., '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, Article 377, pp. 1–14, ACM, New York, 2018.
[4] Cohen, J., Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1988.
[5] Creswell, J. W., Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 4th ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2014.
[6] Doshi-Velez, F., and Kim, B., Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning, arXiv preprint, arXiv:1702.08608, 2017.
[7] European Banking Authority, EBA analysis of RegTech in the EU financial sector
(EBA/REP/2021/17), European Banking Authority, Paris, 2021.
[8] European Commission, Romania in the Digital Economy and Society Index, European Commission, Brussels, 2023.
[9] Field, A., Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th ed., Sage Publications, London, 2018.
[10] Glikson, E., and Woolley, A. W., Human trust in artificial intelligence: Review of empirical research, Academy of Management Annals, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 627–660, 2020.
[11] Iansiti, M., and Lakhani, K. R., Competing in the age of AI: Strategy and leadership when algorithms and networks run the world, Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA, 2020.
[12] Kizilcec, R. F., How much information? Effects of transparency on trust in an algorithmic interface, in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2390–2395, ACM, New York, 2016.
[13] Lankton, N. K., McKnight, D. H., and Tripp, J., Technology, humanness, and trust: Rethinking trust in technology, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 880–918, 2015.
[14] Lee, J. D., and See, K. A., Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance, Human Factors, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 50–80, 2004.
[15] Mangiurea, V., Who controls the decision? Artificial intelligence, algorithmic control, and consumer trust in banking, SNSPA – Doctoral School of Management, Bucharest, 2025.
[16] Obelovska, K., Abziatov, A., Doroshenko, A., Dronyuk, I., Liskevych, O., and Liskevych, R., Analysis of digital skills and infrastructure in EU countries based on DESI 2024 data, Future Internet, vol. 17, no. 6, Article 228, 2025.
[17] Pasquale, F., The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2015.
[18] Pînzaru, F., Strategic management lecture notes and reading & watching packs, SNSPA Doctoral School, Bucharest, 2026.
[19] Porter, M. E., Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance, Free Press, New York, 1985.
[20] Porter, M. E., Corporate strategic management, in Successful Management Strategies and Tools: Industry Insights, Case Studies and Best Practices, Springer, 2021.
[21] Porter, M. E., and Kramer, M. R., Creating shared value, Harvard Business Review, vol. 89, no. 1/2, pp. 62–77, 2011.
[22] Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C., 'Why should I trust you?': Explaining the
predictions of any classifier, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD Conference on
Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 1135–1144, ACM, New York, 2016.
[23] Saunders, M., Lewis, P., and Thornhill, A., Research methods for business students, 8th ed., Pearson, Harlow, 2019.
[24] Shin, D., The effects of explainability and causability on perception, trust, and acceptance: Implications for explainable AI, International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, vol. 146, Article 102551, 2021.
[25] Siau, K., and Wang, W., Building trust in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and robotics, Cutter Business Technology Journal, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 47–53, 2018.
[26] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A., Dynamic capabilities and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 509–533, 1997.
[27] World Bank, Digital transformation in Romania: Opportunities and risks, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2021.