Abstract

This study develops a grounded theory of digital banking service quality by examining how Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria evaluate digital banking services under conditions of institutional uncertainty. Using a Straussian grounded theory approach, data were collected through 54 in-depth episodic narrative interviews with SME owner-managers and digital banking professionals across three major commercial centres in Nigeria. Iterative open, axial, and selective coding, supported by constant comparison and abductive reasoning, identified the Fiduciary Digital Encounter as the core category. The findings show that SMEs evaluate digital banking service quality not through efficiency and functional performance alone, but through the capacity of banking systems to establish, reinforce, and restore institutional trust during digitally mediated service encounters. Five interrelated dimensions of Institutional Trust Work emerged: Algorithmic Assurance, Restorative Responsiveness, Community-Based Conflict Resolution, Proactive Risk Protection, and Transparent Digital Communication. Together, these dimensions explain how institutional trust is actively produced, maintained, and repaired when SMEs encounter uncertainty, service disruptions, transaction risks, and digitally mediated interactions. The findings further indicate that perceived service quality is shaped by how effectively digital banking providers anticipate vulnerabilities, respond to failures, communicate transparently, and mobilize trusted social mechanisms to resolve conflicts. The study contributes to service quality and digital banking literature by conceptualizing Institutional Trust Work as a central mechanism through which digital service quality is experienced, interpreted, and sustained in institutionally uncertain environments. The resulting Fiduciary Digital Encounter framework extends conventional service quality perspectives by foregrounding trust production and restoration as fundamental processes in SME digital banking relationships.

Keywords

Digital BankingService QualityInstitutional Trust WorkSME BankingGrounded TheoryEmerging EconomiesDigital CRMInstitutional TheoryNigeria.

References

  1. [1] Kass-Hanna, J., Lyons, A.C., Liu, F., 2022. Building financial resilience through financial and digital literacy in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Emerging Markets Review. 51, 100846. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2021.100846
  2. [2] Demirgüç-Kunt, A., Klapper, L., Singer, D., et al., 2022. The Global Findex Database 2021: Financial Inclusion, Digital Payments, and Resilience in the Age of COVID-19. World Bank: Washington, DC, USA.
  3. [3] Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency of Nigeria (SMEDAN), National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), 2021. Survey Report on Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in Nigeria. SMEDAN and NBS: Abuja, Nigeria.
  4. [4] Wezel, T., Ree, J.J., 2023. Nigeria—Fostering financial inclusion through digital financial services: Nigeria. IMF Selected Issues Papers. 2023(020), 1–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5089/9798400237195.018
  5. [5] Sam-Abugu, C., Luo, X., Wong, B., 2025. The combined role of FinTech innovation and financial literacy in sustainable financial inclusion in Nigeria. International Review of Economics. 72, 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-025-00490-1
  6. [6] Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing. 64(1), 12–40.
  7. [7] Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Malhotra, A., 2005. E-S-QUAL: A multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. Journal of Service Research. 7(3), 213–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504271156
  8. [8] Blut, M., Chowdhry, N., Mittal, V., et al., 2015. E-service quality: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Retailing. 91(4), 615–635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.05.004
  9. [9] Grönroos, C., 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing. 18(4), 36–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004784
  10. [10] Tueanrat, Y., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E., 2021. Going on a journey: A review of the customer journey literature. Journal of Business Research. 125, 336–353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.12.028
  11. [11] Vargo, S.L., Peters, L., Kjellberg, H., et al., 2023. Emergence in marketing: An institutional and ecosystem framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 51(1), 2–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00849-8
  12. [12] Field, J.M., Fotheringham, D., Subramony, M., et al., 2021. Service research priorities: Designing sustainable service ecosystems. Journal of Service Research. 24(4), 462–479. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10946705211031302
  13. [13] Deng, X., Yang, X., Jiang, Y., et al., 2023. Reflection, resilience, rebound: Consumer coping with the pandemic. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. 8(2), 121–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/724545
  14. [14] Esendemirli, E., Olawale, A.A., Celik, S., et al., 2024. Digital banking adoption: Evidence from the Nigerian youth market. International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences. 14(1), 14–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13871769
  15. [15] Morgan, R.M., Hunt, S.D., 1994. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing. 58(3), 20–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800302
  16. [16] Srivastava, M., Sivaramakrishnan, S., Pandey, N., 2024. Demystifying customer engagement in B2B markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 39(11), 2364–2385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-08-2023-0481
  17. [17] Paulus, M., Jordanow, S., Millemann, J.A., 2022. Adoption factors of digital services—A systematic literature review. Service Science. 14(4), 318–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2022.0305
  18. [18] Kuen, L., Westmattelmann, D., Bruckes, M., et al., 2023. Who earns trust in online environments? A meta-analysis of trust in technology and trust in provider for technology acceptance. Electronic Markets. 33(1), 61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00672-1
  19. [19] Kramer, R., Tyler, T., Meyerson, D., et al., 1996. Swift trust and temporary groups. In: Kramer, R., Tyler, T. (Eds.). Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA. pp. 166–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n9
  20. [20] Hawlitschek, F., Notheisen, B., Teubner, T., 2018. The limits of trust-free systems: A literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. 29, 50–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2018.03.005
  21. [21] Dieleman, M., Markus, S., Rajwani, T., et al., 2022. Revisiting institutional voids: Advancing the international business literature by leveraging social sciences. Journal of International Management. 28(3), 100935. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100935
  22. [22] Agarwal, A., Assenova, V.A., 2024. Mobile money as a stepping stone to financial inclusion: How digital multisided platforms fill institutional voids. Organization Science. 35(3), 769–787. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.16562
  23. [23] Gawer, A., 2022. Digital platforms and ecosystems: Remarks on the dominant organizational forms of the digital age. Innovation. 24(1), 110–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2021.1965888
  24. [24] Bonina, C., Koskinen, K., Eaton, B., et al., 2021. Digital platforms for development: Foundations and research agenda. Information Systems Journal. 31(6), 869–902. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12326
  25. [25] Lawrence, T.B., Suddaby, R., 2006. Institutions and institutional work. In: Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C., Lawrence, T.B., et al. (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Organization Studies, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications: London, UK. pp. 215–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608030.n7
  26. [26] Lawrence, T.B., Suddaby, R., Leca, B., 2011. Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry. 20(1), 52–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222
  27. [27] Strauss, A., Corbin, J., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed. SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
  28. [28] Charmaz, K., Thornberg, R., 2021. The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 18(3), 305–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357
  29. [29] Clarke, A.E., Washburn, R., Friese, C. (Eds.), 2022. Situational Analysis in Practice: Mapping Relationalities across Disciplines, 2nd ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003035923
  30. [30] Timmermans, S., Tavory, I., 2022. Data Analysis in Qualitative Research: Theorizing with Abductive Analysis. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226817729.001.0001
  31. [31] Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. SAGE Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA.

How to Cite

Ekejiuba Augustine Nnaemeka. The Fiduciary Digital Encounter: Developing a Grounded Theory of Institutional Trust Work and Service Quality in Nigeria's SME Banking Ecosystem. Journal of Emerging Markets and Management. 28 October 2026. https://doi.org/10.63385/jemm.v2i3.102684
Citation formats

Copyright & License

Copyright © 2026 Ekejiuba Augustine Nnaemeka. Published by Nature and Information Engineering Publishing Sdn. Bhd..

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors retain copyright. Accepted manuscripts are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reuse is permitted under the terms of the license with proper attribution to the original source.

Article Metrics

57Abstract views
63Downloads