CC BY
37DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2023-24-4-5 EDN: LDBQFA JEL classification: G28
Svetlana S. Galazova Kosta Levanovich Khetagurov North Ossetia State University,
Vladikavkaz, Russia
Digital banking ecosystems: Comparative analysis and competition regulation in Russia
Abstract. Digital ecosystems allow banks to expand their offerings of financial and non-financial services, and thereby raise the quality and speed of customer service. Yet the broader range of banks' non-financial services increases the size of their non-core assets and affects their financial stability. This creates certain complexities to ecosystems' management both at the level of a bank and at the level of financial market regulation. The study covers theoretical and practical aspects of setting up and developing ecosystems in the Russian banking industry. The theory of industrial organisation and the ecosystem concept constitute the methodological basis of the research. The study adopts comparative and structural analysis methods. The evidence comes from public and internal reporting of PAO Sberbank, AO Tinkoff Bank, VTB Bank (PAO). The research found that banking ecosystems differ in the key area of activities (for instance, the Tinkoff Bank's ecosystem focuses on investment and education, whereas VTB Bank's one concentrates on a housing programme), nature of interaction between their participants, and the method of creation (universal, niche, outsourcing, insourcing). The development specifics of digital banking ecosystems depend on their specialisation, structure of immobilised assets, customer base, and level of business processes' digitalisation. The value of the research comes from the revealed structural and functional peculiarities of digital ecosystems in the banking industry, as well as in the proved necessity to further refine the methods for accounting and assessing immobilised assets of banks.
Keywords: banks; ecosystems; banking ecosystems; fintech; digital technologies; immobilised assets.
For citation: Galazova S. S. (2023). Digital banking ecosystems: Comparative analysis and competition regulation in Russia. Journal of New Economy, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 82-106. DOI: 10.29141/2658-5081-2023-24-4-5. EDN: LDBQFA. Article info: received July 21, 2023; received in revised form September 12, 2023; accepted September 27, 2023
Introduction
Digital ecosystems are a promising area for the development of the banking sector that offer new opportunities for providing financial and non-financial services to consumers. The ecosystem approach promotes more productive interaction between consumers, investors and partners of credit institutions, ensuring a competitive expansion of a client base of companies both in financial and related sectors of the economy.
According to McKinsey, over the past 10 years, the ROE of banks has been 8-10 % on average around the world, and in the future it may decrease by two times, which is pushing banks to look for integrated and ecosystem activities outside the financial sector. According to McKinsey forecasts, by 2030 ecosystems will account for up to 30 % of global GDP [Zverev, Bespalov, Bespalova, 2022].
In addition, new internet players are entering the financial market, competing with traditional banks in financial intermediation in the digital environment. This fundamentally changes the way of meeting clients' financial needs. If in the traditional "bank - financial product" approach the bank itself was put in first place, and after that its product line was considered, then in the digital approach the uniqueness of the financial product comes first, and only after that a client chooses a bank with an ecosystem or other financial instruments to satisfy their needs [Sankha, Ram, 2020; Stefanelli, Manta, 2023].
Large network providers and online stores took advantage of the changes in consumer preferences. They offer alternative financial instruments to pay for goods and services (Amazon Pay, eBay, WeChat Pay, AliPay, MTS Pay, VK Pay, Ozon Pay, etc.), competing with the banking sector in providing clients with comfortable access to instant payments and transactions [Shkhalakhova, Przhedetskaya, 2021].
From this perspective, the development of digital banking ecosystems acts as a strategic necessity for the survival of credit institutions in the context of increasing digital competition between internet players and the banking sector [Okello Can-diya Bongomin, Yourougou, Munene, 2020; Yudaruddin, 2023].
At the present, the processes of forming ecosystems' e-wallets and combined digital currencies1,2, are also being updated. According to experts, their share could make up from 5 to 10 % of the global payments market by 2030 [Ganesh et al., 2022]. The competitive coexistence of traditional and digital currencies will have a major impact on the entire payment system, both nationally and internationally. In other words, the development of digital banking ecosystems is not only a global trend, but also a natural result of the digitalisation of financial and non-financial services.
1 The combination of digital currencies allows creating a variety of modifications to perform certain functions of money.
2 Does the electrocoin have a chance to become a new world currency? https://nbj.ru/publs/est_li_shansy_u_ elektrokoyna_stat_novoy_mi/62858/. (In Russ.)
At the same time, the expansion of non-financial goods and services within banking ecosystems increases the size of the bank's immobilised assets, so non-core assets affect its financial stability, which poses certain difficulties in managing banking ecosystems.
According to the Bank of Russia, the 30 leading banks have 85 % of immobilised assets and a capital coverage of 15 % (0.4 trillion rubles), which creates operational, cross-sectoral and strategic risks to the financial stability of the banking sector1. If we compare the financial system with the circulatory system of the economy, non-core assets of banks become "immobilised entities", obstructing the 'blood flow' of monetary circulation.
The growth in the share of immobilised assets results in new management tasks related to reducing threats to financial stability of credit institutions and the entire banking industry, since non-core assets are available not only to banks involved in the formation and development of their own digital ecosystems, but also to those which have not yet started developing such high-cost projects.
In addition, banking ecosystems have some peculiarities of development proceeding from a bank's specialisation, the structure of its client base and assets, the volume of non-financial services, as well as the digitalisation level of business processes and channels for promoting banking services. This brings the problem of regulatory impacts' efficiency. On the one hand, regulating the size of non-core assets should not suppress the competitive and innovative component of digital banking ecosystems, and on the other hand, regulating banks' immobilised assets should ensure the financial stability of the banking sector.
Solving this problem is especially relevant in the conditions of the sanctions pressure on the Russian market of banking and information services, ongoing consolidation processes of banking ecosystem products, development of non-financial digital ecosystems. It requires defining the conceptual, organisational and market boundaries of business ecosystems, considering issues of regulating the immobilised assets of banks, including problems of improving methods for assessing and accounting for banks' non-core assets.
The purpose of the study is to explore the theoretical and practical aspects of ecosystems' formation and regulation in the banking sector of the Russian Federation.
In order to achieve the purpose, the following objectives were set out:
- exploring the theoretical aspects of the formation and regulation of banking ecosystems;
1 Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Regulating the risks of banks' participation in ecosystems and investments in immobilised assets. https://cbr.ru/statichtml/file/41186/pr_23-06-2021.pdf. (In Russ.)
- conducting a comparative analysis of the structural and functional characteristics of the digital banking ecosystems using the cases of PAO Sberbank, AO Tinkoff Bank and VTB Bank (PAO);
- contextualising and interpreting the results.
The research applies theoretical and empirical tools for researching industrial markets, as well as comparative analysis methods for identifying the functioning specifics of financial and non-financial ecosystems in the digital environment. The evidence is the data on the ecosystems formation in the banking and non-banking sectors of the Russian economy.
Theoretical aspects of banking ecosystems' formation and regulation
A closer look to the economic literature devoted to organisational structures based on digital platforms reveals various standpoints and approaches to their study, reflecting the evolution of the concept "banking ecosystem" along the logical chain: "business model - business ecosystem - banking ecosystem".
It is necessary to emphasise that the initial period of theoretical research into business models of organisations was focused on the consideration of internal flows and internal participants in business processes, contributing to the achievement of an enterprise's economic efficiency. According to Timmers [1998], an organisation's business model represents the structure of internal information, service and product flows aimed at generating profit for the enterprise.
Further consideration of organisations' business models moved from studying internal flows and processes to the identifying inter-firm and cross-sectoral connections of an organisation with its partners in the external business environment, what resulted in the emergence of the concept "business ecosystem" with a broader framework for disclosing the market and organisational boundaries of firms' activities compared to the concept "organisation's business model".
The term "ecosystem"1 came into the economic research from the environmental and biological sciences [Tansley, 1935] and formed the basis for the understanding of "the economy as an ecosystem"2 [Rothschild, 1990]. In its turn, the definition of business ecosystem or entrepreneurial ecosystem introduced by Moore [1998] served as the start of theoretical and empirical developments in business ecosystems among researchers.
1 In biology ecosystem is the symbiosis of living organisms and their external environment.
2 The term "bionomics" proposed by Rothschild, reflecting the economy as an ecosystem by analogy with biological and natural systems, initially did not have wide popularity in scientific circles. However, the similarity of the reduction "ecosystem" - from the position of ecology, and "ecosystem" - from the position of economics, manifested itself in the emergence of such a theoretical direction as "industrial ecology", which considered the impact of industrial enterprises on the environment, which later served as one from the sources of the modern ESG concept of enterprises [Tsujimoto et al., 2017].
For instance, Acs et al. argue that the business ecosystem reflects the interaction between a company's units and external competitive environment to make a profit [Acs et al., 2016]. Jacobides, Cennamo and Gawer [2018] note that the business ecosystem includes a set of not only competing enterprises, but also company's partners offering a consumer a certain set of goods, services and products.
Zott, Amit and Massa [2011] emphasise that the concept of company's business model is expanded to the definition of a business ecosystem, in which the targets are not just making a profit, but creating values for all participants in the business ecosystem, including the company and its partners. For example, based on consumer loyalty to the brand of the parent company, it becomes possible for business ecosystems' participants to appropriate a share of this total value along the chain of its formation.
West and Wood [2013] note that a business ecosystem is a local business environment that includes stakeholders and other interested parties of a company with the goal of sustainable development for all participants in the business ecosystem.
Joo, Eom and Shin [2017] point to that, first of all, a digital business ecosystem is an interconnected economic community that has a common goal and a common internet platform of operation. According to Valkokari [2015], any business ecosystem strives for the sustainable development of all its participants based on obtaining the synergistic effect of forming digital inter-company connections by saving on transaction costs of interaction between participants in the business ecosystem and strengthening customer trust.
Wulf and Butel [2017] recognise the network nature of the relationship between participants in business ecosystems and enterprise stakeholders (suppliers, partners, clients, the state, etc.). When determining the essential characteristics of a business ecosystem, Senyo, Liu and Effah [2019] focus on a unified digital basis for its functioning, as well as on the structural composition of participants in a business ecosystem, including the entire range of company stakeholders, including consumers.
Ramenskaya [2020] argues that a business ecosystem is the interactions between a company and its partners in the external business environment in order to maximise profits. At the same time, there is a hybrid nature of the relationship between participants in a business ecosystem, which can be both formal and informal.
According to Kleyner, Rybachuk and Karpinskaya [2020], business ecosystems in the financial sector are aimed at the creation and circulation of both material and symbolic goods and values. Therefore, business ecosystems are built according to the horizontal type and have limited control from the hierarchy.
From the viewpoint of Sviridov and Badmaeva [2019] a banking ecosystem represents a horizontally organised system, where a set of banking offers is created based
on client information. Zokirov [2019] notes that a banking ecosystem is a comprehensive set of products and services provided in various areas of activity united under the auspices of one organisation.
In line with Bychkova [2020], the digital banking ecosystem is built on platform internet technologies and extensive customer databases, which gives it some scalability and leads to significant economic benefits when attracting customers, due to a systemic synergistic effect.
Samieva, Zakirova and Shvandar [2020] believe that digital business ecosystems allow intergrading business processes so that the consumer of an ecosystem receives the widest possible range of products and services from all participants in a business ecosystem.
Fatkhutdinova [2023] emphasises that a banking ecosystem is a complex of interactions between service providers and partners, including relations of competition and cooperation in order to provide users of a banking ecosystem with the broadest possible range of financial and non-financial services.
Mikheeva [2023] asserts that a modern banking ecosystem is a set of legal entities according to the hierarchical type of banking holding company. The definition presented by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation1 implies that a business ecosystem is the client-centric business model of an organisation to provide a wide range of products, services and information to consumers of this business ecosystem.
According to the Bank of Russia, a banking ecosystem is a set of servers built on client data, which makes it possible to provide them a wide range of goods, services and products2. In open banking ecosystems, the operator does not restrict competition between suppliers of products, goods and services to customers. In closed banking ecosystems, there is no internal competition between suppliers of products and services, only reliance on the participants' partnership. Hybrid models combine features of both open and closed models of a banking ecosystem. Therefore, they are the most characteristic of Russian banking ecosystems3.
Despite the variety of research approaches to the concept of digital business ecosystems, the following aspects of this phenomenon are commonly highlighted:
1) business ecosystems reflect inter-firm and cross-sectoral interactions of an organisation and its participants that operate on an integrated digital basis;
1 The concept of general regulating the activities of companies groups developing various digital services based on a single "ecosystem". https://www.economy.gov.ru/material/file/cb29a7d08290120645a871be41599850/koncep-ciya_21052021.pdf. (In Russ.)
2 Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Ecosystems: approaches to regulation. https:// cbr.ru/Content/Document/File/119960/Consultation_Paper_02042021.pdf. (In Russ.)
3 Ibid.
2) participants in a business ecosystem can have various relationships with each other (both non-competitive partnerships and competitive relationships in the real and digital business environment);
3) the formation and development goals of business ecosystems are not only of a financial nature (maximising profits, increasing the value of the company of business ecosystem participants, etc.), but also of an intangible nature (trust of business ecosystem participants, increase in customer loyalty to the brand of a company and its partners, sustainable development of the value chain for consumers and participants in the business ecosystem, the formation and circulation of symbolic benefits, the accumulation of large information databases about clients of the business ecosystem, etc.);
4) the source for building business ecosystems and their functioning is the saving on transaction costs of interaction between an organisation and its participants (partners, suppliers, intermediaries, clients, government, etc.), as well as the synergistic effects of systemising and monetising information databases about clients of business ecosystems;
5) the structure and configuration of participants in business ecosystems can change, for being determined by the benefits and risks of its functioning. Therefore, the organisational, cross-sectoral and market boundaries of business ecosystems are mobile, since some participants successfully integrate into a business ecosystem, while others are leaving this business community.
Unlike the classical approach to studying atomised firms in the external economic environment, the ecosystem approach expands competitive boundaries of an economic entity's functioning not only through partners in its market niche, but also through cross-sector segments, which are not directly related to its specialisation. From the perspective of the cluster approach, focused on the spatial and territorial reproduction of the infrastructural integrity of specialised products and services, the ecosystem approach is not strongly tied to territorial resources and geographic areas. In comparison with the network interaction of organisations, within the ecosystem approach "hubs" of value modules of products and services are created, around which digital chains of consumer preferences and network interactions of participants in the business ecosystem are built based on a 'seamless' omnichannel process of organisation's ecosystem functioning.
A considerable body of research on the banking ecosystem note their following advantages: convenience and speed of clients' financial and non-financial transactions [Rudskaya, Shikolenko, 2019; Samiev, Zakirova, Shvandar, 2020]; flexibility and timely availability of mobile banking for a banking ecosystem' clients [Shelkunova, Kravchenko, Nechaev, 2023]; innovative focus of digital banking ecosystems [By-kanova et al., 2020]; development of e-wallets in ecosystems for customers [Teng,
Khong, 2021]; high level of innovations and digital financial technologies [Sedykh, Markin, 2023].
In addition to the obvious advantages of banking ecosystems, researchers point to certain risks of their functioning, namely: cyber risks associated with the loss of clients databases [Zabala Aguayo, Slusarczyk, 2020; Dudin, Shkodinskiy, 2022]; increased risks of 'pulling out' partners in the business ecosystem if they encountered some financial difficulties1; growing monopolisation and instability of large business ecosystems [Viswanadham, Samvedi, 2013]; confidential information about non-financial partners of a banking business ecosystem [Jacobides, Cennamo, Gawer, 2018]; growth of banking competition in the financial sector [Vakhrushev, Kalsin, Niederstrat, 2021].
Moreover, difficulties arise in regulating immobilised assets as part of banking ecosystems, which creates additional cross-sectoral risks that can result in financial instability of both individual banks and the banking sector as a whole [Andryushin, Grigoriev, 2021].
The documents of the Bank of Russia2 and the Federal Antimonopoly Service3 detail the normative aspects of digital banking ecosystems' functioning in terms of their formation and riskiness and allow for their reasonable openness, maintenance of accuracy in the rules, the protection of user rights when receiving feedback from customers as well as provide for the exclusion of monopoly one of the ecosystems.
According to the Bank of Russia's approach, non-core assets included in a bank's ecosystem affect its financial stability and ability to absorb losses. Assets, which do not require the funds' return, such as equity and hybrid financial investment instruments, tangible property of non-core assets (real estate, IT infrastructure equipment, transport, etc.), as well as intangible assets, including software, neural networks, brand, intellectual rights, etc., are considered as immobilised assets. The regulator recommends setting a limit on the concentration of immobilised assets in the form of a risk-sensitive maximum in non-financial assets in the amount of 30 % of the bank's capital, taking into account immobilisation coefficients (IC) for different types of immobilised assets of the bank4. Figure 1 shows the change in the risk-sensitive maximum on non-financial assets of banks, taking into account different immobilisation coefficients.
1 Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Regulating the risks of banks' participation in ecosystems and investments in immobilised assets. https://cbr.ru/statichtml/file/41186/pr_23-06-2021.pdf. (In Russ.)
2 Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Ecosystems: approaches to regulation. https:// cbr.ru/Content/Document/File/119960/Consultation_Paper_02042021.pdf. (In Russ.); Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Regulating the risks of banks' participation in ecosystems and investments in immobilised assets. https://cbr.ru/statichtml/file/41186/pr_23-06-2021.pdf. (In Russ.)
3 Ecosystem analysis: FAS has compiled five principles for the operation of digital platforms. https://fas.gov.ru/ publications/23202. (In Russ.)
4 Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Regulating the risks of banks' participation in ecosystems and investments in immobilised assets. https://cbr.ru/statichtml/file/41186/pr_23-06-2021.pdf. (In Russ.)
Immobilised assets until complete disposal of maximum (with 100 % capital)
30%
Riskier bank assets are taken
into account with a higher immobilisation
coefficient and fill the maximum faster
IC= 1
IC = 3
Fig. 1. Using a risk-sensitive maximum for immobilised assets1
From the viewpoint of the regulator, such an approach to managing immobilised assets both for banks building ecosystems and other credit institutions, will not impede the development of business ecosystem's new products and services, but at the same time will create a protective 'corridor' from the uncontrolled expansion of immobilised assets in the banking sector.
The risk-sensitive maximum toolkit is intended to replace the existing set of requirements for the deduction of fixed assets, investment property and other non-financial assets typical for universal banks. At the moment, there is not a classification of balance sheet accounts for calculating their value2 in the methodology for immobilised assets accounting, proposed by the Bank of Russia. Therefore, the timeframe for implementing regulation based on a risk-sensitive maximum has not yet been strictly defined (3-5 years), which gives time to finalise the methodological and organisational issues of managing banks' non-core assets.
Thus, considering the theoretical aspects of the concept "banking ecosystem" showed the diversity of research approaches to and viewpoints on understanding the structure and nature of the relationship between participants in an ecosystem, the goals of its development, as well as the sources of functioning and the dynamics of the banking ecosystems' configuration. This indicates the need to continue scientific search for characteristics of this concept and identification of its organisational and market boundaries. In Russia, the basic principles of managing banking ecosystems have been defined based on risk-sensitive maximum for immobilised assets of credit institutions; however, time is still required to improve methods for assessing and accounting for banks' non-core assets.
1 Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Ecosystems: approaches to regulation. https:// cbr.ru/Content/Document/File/119960/Consultation_Paper_02042021.pdf. (In Russ.)
2 Ibid.
Comparative analysis of digital ecosystems of Russian banks
Let us look at some structural and functional peculiarities of digital ecosystems formed by the Russian banks, namely PAO Sberbank, AO Tinkoff Bank and VTB Bank (PAO).
The banking ecosystem of PAO Sberbank is set up according to a universal principle based on the lifestyle banking model, which is to a certain extent explained by the predominance of individuals in the bank's clientele, allowing clients to find everything they need in one window, as well as providing the opportunity to analyse, keep records and manage their finances in a convenient visual and functional format. Since the end of 2016, Sberbank has been one of the first to start building its own digital banking system, rebuilding it taking into account sanctions and changes in the financial and geopolitical landscape.
Thus, Sberbank's client base includes 114.5 million users, of which 110 million are individuals (96.07 %) and 4.5 million are legal entities (3.93 %). Their ecosystem includes 6.7 thousand office branches and 26.1 thousand ATMs. Despite the repeated removal of the Sberbank mobile application from foreign digital systems, the number of the application clients has not decreased, but increased, amounting to more than 80 million users. Moreover, 65 % of their client base are middle-aged consumers and retirees1.
Due to the sanctions, Sberbank left the European banking market, selling 16 of its branches (2 branches remained in Belarus and India), but it is planned to open branches in the Middle East and Latin America. Sberbank has a representative office in China, which the bank plans to expand to the level of a branch by the end of 20232.
One of the fast-growing segments of the PAO Sberbank ecosystem is the government relations department (B2G) based on a geoplatform for business and government. Sberbank actively takes part in the initiatives of the Bank of Russia and the Government of the Russian Federation, appearing in joint projects and 'regulatory sandboxes'. For example, the Green Windows of Sberbank offices, which operate on the principles of Islamic banking to attract investors from the Middle East (Qatar, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.)3.
The Sberbank ecosystem includes a wide range of financial services - banking, credit, P2P, insurance and investments (SberOnline, SberInvestor, SberSpasibo, Sber-Pay), and non-financial services - e-medicine (SberHealth), education (SberClass, SberUniversity), public sector food (SberFood, Samokat), real estate transactions and mortgages (DomKlik, SovTech), e-commerce (separate holding company SberMar-ket), entertainment and recreation sector (Rambler-Kassa, Soyuzmultfilm), transport
1 PAO Sberbank: official website. https://www.sberbank.com/ru. (In Russ.)
2 Sberbank has registered its trademark in the Chinese financial market. https://www.sberbank.com/ru. (In Russ.)
3 Sberbank opened the first office in Russia operating according to the rules of Islamic banking. https://www. banki.ru/news/lenta/?id=10976554. (In Russ.)
(SberAuto, 2GIS, Osago-online, etc.), IT technologies (Sber ID, IT technologies for facial recognition, SberBox - smart house, etc.). In the business sector of the bank's B2B ecosystem, services such as the SberB2B store, SberLeasing, SberFacting, Sber-Resolutions, outsourcing of accounting and business processes, digital financial reporting platform, etc. are being developed.
From these positions, PAO Sberbank is becoming more than just a bank, since its digital ecosystem acts as an integrated technological internet platform that sells a wide range of financial and non-financial services to clients.
The use of artificial intelligence in the Sberbank ecosystem (voice assistants and virtual assistants - Athena and Joy, processing calls, requests, customer preferences, etc.), as well as the GigaChat and Kandinsky 2.1 neural networks aimed at the younger Sberbank clients attracted an audience of 1 million people for the first 4 days of work. Sberbank has developed a separate banking product for lending to young people without a credit history starting from 1 thousand rubles, competing with microfinance institutions.
Currently, the Sberbank digital ecosystem includes more than 60 Russian and foreign partners in the field of non-financial services. They plan to increase the income from non-core assets in Sberbank's total income from today's 5-6 % to 30 % by 20301.
At the same time, the integration degree of all financial and non-financial links in Sberbank's huge ecosystem has not yet reached its peak. The ecosystem has gone through several reforms, as a result of which there is a clear division between B2C (individuals) and B2B (business clients), as well as infrastructure areas - e-commerce, transport, IT technologies. Within the bank's ecosystem, some services are purchased (Yandex.Money), while others are sold off due to sanctions - Citymobil taxi, Okko cinema, SberZvuk, Kitchens on the District, Delivery Club, etc.
The Bank of Russia's methodology for regulating immobilised assets of credit insti-tutions2 does not contain a classification of balance sheet accounts to calculate their size, but in separate studies [Andryushin, Grigoriev, 2021] it is proposed. Based on this, we consider changes in the immobilised assets and profit of PAO Sberbank for 2019-2020 (Figure 2).
Sberbank's assets grew in 2020 by 760.76 billion rubles (2.64 %), and a year later in 2021 went up by 5,929.02 billion rubles (17.3 %).
The immobilised assets decreased by 25.34 billion rubles (1.01 %) in 2020, whereas in 2021 increased by 410.43 billion rubles (14.1 %).
In its turn, the profit in 2020 grew by 58.96 billion rubles (6.78 %) and amounted to 870.06 billion rubles, but in 2021 it dropped by 88.47 billion rubles (11.32 %) and amounted to 781.59 billion rubles.
1 PAO Sberbank: official website. https://www.sberbank.com/ru. (In Russ.)
2 Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Ecosystems: approaches to regulation. https:// cbr.ru/Content/Document/File/119960/Consultation_Paper_02042021.pdf. (In Russ.)
Billion rubles 35,000.00
30,000.00 28,133.770 25,000.00
34,823.550
28,894.530
20,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 0.00
2019
2020 Immobilised assets
2021
Total assets ■ Immobilised assets ■ Profit Fig. 2. Immobilised assets and profit of PAO Sberbank, 2019-20211
To comply with the N1=10 % standard in line with the Bank of Russia's methodology for assessing immobilised assets, PAO Sberbank should increase capital "by 88.11 % or by 3,754.0 billion rubles in 2019, by 87.74 % (4,001.4 billion rubles) in 2020, and by 89.34 % (4,235.7 billion rubles) in 2021" [Andryushin, Grigoriev, 2021]. However, Sberbank was unable to cover the increase in capital through annual profit, since the size of this indicator amounted to 811.1 billion rubles in 2019, 870.1 billion rubles in 2020 and 781.6 billion rubles in 2021. This is not enough to cover the recommended growth in the bank's capital, which heightens the cross-sectoral risks of PAO Sberbank's immobilised and non-core assets.
In contrast to the initial stage of the ecosystem formation through the purchase of non-core businesses, at the present PAO Sberbank strives to develop partnerships, but at the same time, there remains an insufficient level of information transparency in the management of the bank's non-core businesses, which affects the level of its immobilised assets.
Thus, the specificity of the structure and functioning of Sberbank's digital ecosystem consists in the following. Firstly, the ecosystem has the largest client base in the Russian banking sector - 114.5 million clients, with a focus on individuals (lifestyle banking) (97.03 %) and business sector (3.93 %), which has its advantages and disadvantages for its sustainable development. Secondly, the ecosystem has the widest possible range of non-financial services (60 Russian and foreign business partners). Thirdly, the ecosystem has a strong cross-sector differentiation of non-financial modules, some businesses leave, while others are acquired, contributing to the expansion of services (introduction of SberPay QR services, Smart Health Monitoring, etc.). Fourthly, the B2G geoplatform is being actively developed with the state support for implementing joint initiatives and projects (Green Windows of Sberbank, National
1 Source: Own calculations based on reports of PAO Sberbank; [Andryushin, Grigoriev, 2021]. (In Russ.)
Code of Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, etc.). Finally, the ecosystem takes high cross-sectoral risks of a bank's immobilised assets.
AO Tinkoff Bank acts as an innovative online provider of financial services in the Russian and foreign markets. At the end of 2017, the bank actively begun to integrate its own digital ecosystem, functioning as a digital bank from the very beginning.
AO Tinkoff Bank does not have office branches for customer service, but 1,088 individual bank representatives work locally, relying on a network of 2.5 thousand ATMs. As of the end of 2022, AO Tinkoff Bank had 20.7 million active clients, of which 19.7 million (94.01 %) were individuals and 1 million (5.9 %) were business clients1.
By virtue of the sanctions, AO Tinkoff Bank, like other systemically important Russian banks, were cut off from the possibility to process foreign transactions, and now are actively cooperating with other Russian banks and payment services SberPay QR and Alfa Pay in order to create contactless payments integrated into one payment system2.
AO Tinkoff Bank is classified as a digital bank due to the extensive use of artificial intelligence, process automation and digital channels of customer service. The use of artificial intelligence to systematise client preferences and needs makes it possible to personalise banking products, which allows clients to receive analytical recommendations for managing their finances and optimising their expenses and investments.
The specificity of AO Tinkoff Bank banking ecosystem is the high degree of end-to-end integration of all the bank's online services, taking into account the principles of its own ecosystem: 1) convenience; 2) advice; 3) lifestyle banking, which is reflected in the energetic advertising of their services in the digital environment.
AO Tinkoff Bank targets the audience in large Russian cities. Moscow and Saint Petersburg account for 37 % of the bank's territorial presence, and the mobile application is used by 61 % of the bank's clients aged 18-40 years, of which 30 % use investment bank platforms. AO Tinkoff Bank is actively involved in social and sports programmes in Moscow and Saint Petersburg3.
Currently, the AO Tinkoff Bank ecosystem includes 15 main areas of development of financial and non-financial services: Tinkoff Bank (banking services, online payments, transfers); Tinkoff Insurance, Tinkoff Capital (investment fund management); Tinkoff Investments (own stock broker and investment training); Tinkoff wallet (client's ecosystem wallet, management of bonuses, points, miles, etc.); Tinkoff Business (startup incubator, business piggy bank, business cash desk, e-commerce, accounting outsourcing, business loans, B2B); Tinkoff Marketplace and Tinkoff Junior (family
1 AO Tinkoff Bank: official website. https://www.tinkoff.ru. (In Russ.)
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
banking, e-commerce of goods and services, BNPL services, food delivery); Tinkoff Target (collection of databases on customer purchases and transactions in order to personalise complex banking products for them); Tinkoff Mobile (cellular operator, virtual number and cashback mobile account card, voice assistant Oleg); Tinkoff Travel (travel and leisure, taxi, ride sharing); Tinkoff City (restaurant booking, purchasing tickets for events, etc.); Tinkoff reviews (a service with feedback from real consumers); Tinkoff Seller (analytics, unit economics for working on the Ozon and Wildberries marketplaces).
Particular attention in the AO Tinkoff Bank ecosystem is paid to the educational component based on the Tinkoff Education platform, implementing educational programmes for schoolchildren, students and IT specialists. AO Tinkoff Bank for the first time in the Russian Federation launched the development of a private university, including undergraduate and graduate levels based on the STEM model together with the National Research University Higher School of Economics and the Bank of Russia1.
A distinctive feature of the AO Tinkoff Bank ecosystem's functioning is that it is built according to a niche model [Molamusov, Adzhiev, 2021] within the specialised field of educational and investment focus for private and business clients.
However, after the change of the bank's ownership in 2022, the development direction of the AO Tinkoff Bank digital banking ecosystem shifted towards increasing the universality of providing banking and non-banking services and expanding joint government projects. Figure 3 allows examining the immobilised assets and profit of AO Tinkoff Bank for 2019-2021.
Billion rubles
900.00 877.62
800.00 700.00 600.00
500.00 4m82 400.00 300.00 200.00
100.00 31.87 16.96
0.00
2019 2020 2021
Total assets i Immobilised assets "Profit Fig. 3. Immobilised assets and profit of AO Tinkoff Bank, 2019-20212
1 Tinkoff announces the launch of Russia's first private STEM university. https://www.tinkoff.ru. (In Russ.)
2 Source: Own calculations based on reports of AO Tinkoff Bank; [Andryushin, Grigoriev, 2021]. (In Russ.)
The assets of AO Tinkoff Bank grew both in 2020 (by 193.65 billion rubles) and in 2021 (by 273.15 billion rubles). The analysis of immobilised assets also indicates the increases in both years - of 9.13 billion rubles in 2020, and of 13.23 billion rubles in 2021. The profit of AO Tinkoff Bank went up by 10.5 billion rubles and amounted to 27.46 billion rubles in 2020, while in 2021 its increase was less - 9.45 billion rubles.
To comply with the N1=10 % standard recommended by the regulator in line with the Bank of Russia's methodology for assessing immobilised assets, AO Tinkoff Bank needed an increase in capital "by 83.2 % (61.9 billion rubles) in 2019, by 83.69 % (83.5 billion rubles) in 2020, and by 85.8 % (104.1 billion rubles) in 2021" [Andryushin, Grigoriev, 2021], though this did not happen. By recapitalising its profits, the bank did not achieve these indicators, since the level of profit is below the recommended values of the bank's capital in the period under review.
Thus, the specifics of the structure and functioning of the AO Tinkoff Bank digital ecosystem is as follows. Firstly, unlike traditional banks that have their own territorial branches, AO Tinkoff Bank relies on digital interaction between clients and the bank (through the activities of territorial representatives, and owning to 2.5 thousand ATMs). Secondly, the ecosystem is characterised by high digital integration of financial and non-financial services across 15 main areas of the bank's activities. Thirdly, the ecosystem is focused on young and middle-aged clients living in large cities (61 % of clients are 18-40 years old). Fourthly, the ecosystem is distinguished by a pronounced educational component in financial and computer sciences (STEM university, educational programmes for schoolchildren and students, IT specialists, investors). Fifthly, the banking ecosystem is gradually switching from the niche model to increasing its universality and intensifying joint government projects. Finally, the level of cross-sectoral risks of AO Tinkoff Bank's immobilised assets is not as high as that of other digital ecosystems of Russian banks, but may rise with an increase in the number of non-core areas of the ecosystem.
The VTB Bank Group forms a large-scale financial conglomerate according to the principle of a strategic holding, and consists of insurance, leasing and logistics organisations that complement the financial activities of the bank. The distinguishing feature of the conglomerate is the intersectoral nature of functioning in the banking and related sectors, combining telecommunications and information technology, retail trade, and construction companies, as well as companies involved in the transportation and grain sale.
VTB Bank (PAO) is actively involved in the initiatives of the Bank of Russia and major investment projects of the Ministry of Economic Development, such as the construction of Pulkovo and Gelendzhik airports, road infrastructure facilities in Western Siberia, as well as the development of a large port cluster "Demetra Holding", etc.
VTB Bank (PAO) ecosystem includes 1.4 thousand office branches and 8.1 thousand of own ATMs. Due to the sanctions, VTB Bank suffered greatly and closed 24 branches abroad, leaving two branches in Shanghai (China) and New Delhi (India). VTB Bank (PAO) serves about 13.5 million clients, of which 13 million are individuals (96.15 %) and 0.5 million (3.85 %) are business clients1.
VTB Bank (PAO) uses mixed tools to form its business ecosystem, including both direct purchasing a share of Russian Post's assets, Rostelecom, Magnit, Tele2, and opening platform solutions for small and medium-sized businesses with wide connection of affiliate programmes.
Currently, more than 1,200 teams, including over 13 thousand people, are actively working to improve the VTB's digital ecosystem and introduce artificial intelligence into its banking ecosystem. There are currently 130 new digital products and services in use, from customer churn prediction to voice recognition. VTB Bank (PAO) also seeks to boost sales of its services through digital channels, reaching 50 % of its total sales2.
The VTB Bank (PAO) ecosystem with individuals is built according to the lifestyle banking system, providing access to city servers (VTB mobile application, VTB online, etc.).
The non-financial component of the VTB ecosystem includes 7 main areas: information technology; ad placement services; e-commerce and retail; housing; entertainment industry; telecommunications and transport industry.
The specialised core of the VTB's banking ecosystem is the Square Meter housing programme as a competitor to Sberbank's DomClick. The Square Meter programme covers a wide range of services, including the purchase or sale of real estate, execution of relevant transactions, issuance of digital mortgages, as well as interior design services, repairs and home improvement for clients. In addition, at VTB Bank offices, clients can use VR headsets for a unique experience - they can not only view a new building in detail, but also evaluate the possibility of obtaining a digital mortgage.
The VTB Bank (PAO) ecosystem includes the Unicom-24 financial services marketplace, where you can quickly apply for various financial products, both from VTB and other credit institutions (cards, car loans and mortgages). It is also possible to take advantage of related functions, such as real estate market analytics based on client requests, visualisation of the offers ranking for a client, checking the reliability of counterparties in a transaction, insurance and real estate services, and UniShop store. VTB does not yet have its own non-financial marketplace, but it plans to create one considering the needs of clients in the e-commerce and retail segments.
1 VTB Bank (PAO): official website. https://www.vtb.ru. (In Russ.)
2 Ibid.
For business clients in the SME sector, VTB Bank (PAO) offers an "export manager" - outsourced accounting, a designer of online services for implementing the business of small and medium-sized enterprises in the digital environment. Voice assistants, integrated into the VTB banking ecosystem, are available on social networks: What-sApp, Telegram, Viber and Yandex. Virtual access to the digital ecosystem is provided using the web platforms m2.ru, unicom24.ru, as well as classic VTB remote services. Changes in the immobilised assets and profit of VTB Bank (PAO) for 2019-2021 are shown in Figure 4.
Billion rubles 18,000.00 16,000.00 14,000.00 12,000.00 10,000.00 8,000.00 6,000.00 4,000.00 2,000.00 0.00
17,164.34
13,949.42 14,329.21
1,971.74 2,005.52 2,356.47
256.61 208.30 56.10
2019
2021
2020
Total assets ■ Immobilised assets ■ Profit Fig. 4. Immobilised assets and profit of VTB Bank (PAO), 2019-20211
The increase in assets in 2020 compared to 2019 amounted to 379.79 billion rubles, and 2835.13 billion rubles in 2021 compared to the previous year.
Immobilised assets grew by 33.78 billion rubles in 2020, and by 350.95 billion rubles in 2021. In its turn, VTB's profit decreased by 48.31 billion rubles and amounted to 208.3 billion rubles in 2020; in 2021, its decline continued and amounted to 56.1 billion rubles.
To comply with the N1=10% standard according to the Bank of Russia methodology, VTB should increase the capital "by 95.11 % in 2019 or by 1,506.2 billion rubles, by 94.91 % (1,580.94 billion rubles) in 2020, and in 2021 - by 95.71 % (1,608.3 billion rubles) [Andryushin, Grigoriev, 2021]. However, VTB Bank (PAO) was unable to cover the increase in capital through annual profit, since the size of this indicator amounted to 1,971.74 billion rubles in 2019, 208.3 billion rubles in 2020, and 56.1 billion rubles in 2021.
Thus, the structure and functioning specificity of the VTB Bank (PAO) digital ecosystem comes as follows. Firstly, its own ecosystem began to form a little later than that of other banks, covering 13 million individuals (96.15 %) and 0.5 million business clients (3.95 %), with a focus on foreign economic activity of enterprises. Secondly,
1 Source: Own calculations based on reports from VTB Bank (PAO); [Andryushin, Grigoriev, 2021]. (In Russ.)
the ecosystem has a specialised component - Square Meter housing programme and Unicom24 financial marketplace in the B2C sector, covering a wide range of services from purchasing and obtaining a mortgage to home improvement. Thirdly, the ecosystem has niche nature and is built on partnerships with its participants, but does not exclude direct purchases of shares in non-financial businesses. Fourthly, non-financial businesses of the ecosystem cover 7 main areas - information technology, ad placement services, e-commerce and retail, housing, entertainment, telecommunications and transport. Fifthly, the business segment of the ecosystem is focused on the work of small and medium-sized enterprises. Sixthly, the ecosystem is based on the conglomerate holding of the VTB Group with significant participation in government projects. Finally, the level of cross-sectoral risks of immobilised assets is not as high as that of other Russian banks.
Discussion
Digital banking ecosystems contribute to the expansion of product lines in the banking and related sectors, changing the industry boundaries of financial institutions' business models, as banks expand the range of their services, combining resources from various areas of activity within a single digital platform.
Global experience shows that there are different ways to regulate digital ecosystems and active presence of banks in the non-financial sector. On the one hand, there is the American toolkit with an institutional distinction between banking and non-financial areas of activity, which is aimed at minimising risk and ensuring the stability of the financial system. On the other hand, there is the Chinese experience with established standards, with a maximum risk coefficient of 1,250 %, suggesting the need to create appropriate reserves for possible financial losses1.
The main principle of regulating Russian banking digital ecosystems is to prevent the functioning of a dominant digital ecosystem on the market, which requires clarification of its criteria depending on the size of the platform, focus, number of participants, etc.
Ecosystems, as associations of several digital platforms of different companies, can contribute to the effect of 'flow' of the client base from one line of business to another one, occupied by a partner participant of this ecosystem. The risk-sensitive maximum instruments proposed by the regulator for managing non-core assets of banks are pushing credit and non-credit institutions to switch to external and partner mechanisms for the formation of ecosystem products, trying not to use the ecosystem concept.
1 Report of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. (2021). Regulating the risks of banks' participation in ecosystems and investments in immobilised assets. https://cbr.ru/statichtml/file/41186/pr_23-06-2021.pdf. (In Russ.)
Among Russian consumers, the demand for ecosystem products and subscriptions is rising; in 2022, the ecosystem products market in the Russian Federation showed impressive growth, increasing by as much as 24 % compared to 2021, with a volume of 58.1 billion rubles1.
It is significant to understand that ecosystem competition includes not only large banks (PAO Sberbank, AO Tinkoff Bank, VTB Bank (PAO), etc.), but also non-financial players - companies in IT and telecoms: Yandex, VK, MTS, Megafon, etc. This completion also includes retail, online trading and logistics companies such as Ozon, Wildberries, X5 Retail Group2, CDEK3, etc. This creates a variety of players that use an ecosystem approach.
Thus, Yandex incorporated Akropol Bank into its ecosystem, renaming it Yandex Bank, MTS Bank was formed on the basis of the Moscow Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Megafon Bank arose in collaboration with Round Bank, and Wildberries Bank and Ozon Bank were formed using the VTB platform. The X5 Retail Group companies, as a food retailer, and the logistics operator CDEK are at the stage of forming ecosystems with 'built-in' financial services for payments and monetary transactions.
Non-financial digital ecosystems provide a unique opportunity to unite various organisations, communication networks, services and individual users into one digital environment, reducing the time of purchasing and searching for a product or service. In non-financial digital ecosystems, not only companies and organisations, but also individuals playing the role of consumers or providers of certain services can be participants.
Despite the fact that building their own digital ecosystems with a wide range of non-financial services is typical primarily for large banks, however, the ecosystem approach is also implemented in the non-banking sector, this blurs the clear boundaries between banking and non-banking ecosystems.
Figure 5 shows the matrix of financial and non-financial digital ecosystems in the Russian Federation.
Financial and non-financial digital ecosystems are formed in various ways, and combinations of several ecosystem construction options can be used. Non-banking ecosystems can incorporate the financial component they need through partnerships with traditional financial market participants, by forming an internal digital bank for settlements and payments, or by expanding the functionality of the existing retail payment system using external technologies of the digital ecosystem.
1 Ecosystems of Russia in the b2c and b2b segments. Players, services, subscriptions, user experience. Results for 2022. Analytical report. https://json.tv/ekosistemy-rossii-v-b2c-i-b2b-segmentah-igroki-servisy-podpiski-pol-zovatelskij-opyt-itogi-2022-goda/. (In Russ.)
2 X5 Group online services will become a separate player in the retail market. https://marketing-tech.ru/news/ online-services-x5-group/. (In Russ.)
3 Cargo to 27 countries, support on marketplaces and iPhone repair. https://vc.ru/cdek/815944-gruzy-v-27-stran-mira-soprovozhdenie-na-marketpleysah-i-remont-ayfonov. (In Russ.)
Fig. 5. Matrix of financial and non-financial digital ecosystems in the Russian Federation
The major methods for the formation of financial and non-financial ecosystems in the digital environment are as follows:
1) a universal method for building own digital ecosystems is based on the "one window for all clients" principle and reflects the desire to cover 100 % of the needs and habits of client base in the widest area of financial and non-financial services (lifestyle banking for retail and corporate clients - PAO Sberbank, ecosystem of Yandex, VK, MTS, etc.);
2) a niche method for building own digital ecosystems is based on covering 100 % of the specialised financial and non-financial needs of clients in various areas: education, mortgages, car loans, investments and real estate (AO Tinkoff Bank, VTB Bank (PAO), etc.);
3) an outsourcing method for building digital ecosystems implies that a bank does not construct its digital ecosystem from scratch, but uses ready-made technical developments of fintech, with further service content for its client base and ecosystem
participants (AO Gazprombank, AO Rosselkhozbank, AO Pochta-Bank, PAO Sov-combank, LLC Home Credit Bank, Ozon Bank, X5 Retail Group, etc.);
4) an insourcing method of creating an ecosystem supposes that a bank, on the basis of its internal division, provides services for the specialised integration of financial and non-financial needs for external and its own specific groups of clients (Alfa-Bank PAO offers specialised ecosystem partnership services through "super service" not only to its clients, but also to external companies)1.
It is noteworthy that in different methods, various tools for constructing digital ecosystems may overlap both in the "core" and "periphery" of the ecosystem. Due to the modular configuration of digital ecosystems, banks can acquire or sell non-core businesses, as well as build selective partnerships with individual ecosystem participants, thereby changing the cross-sector and market boundaries of their operation. In Russia, combined mechanisms and methods of forming financial and non-financial digital ecosystems are used (universal, niche, outsourcing and insourcing).
Due to their convenience, e-wallets are one of the fastest growing segments of the market for ecosystem products and services and a special area of competition regulation. Thus, restrictions on cash withdrawals in ecosystem e-wallets, such as QIWI2, introduced by the Russian regulator in connection with checking the activities of this ecosystem, led to fines and significant restrictions on the company's activities for six months3. Banking and non-banking digital payment instruments compete particularly fiercely with each other in this segment for leading positions - SberPay, MTS Pay, VK Pay, Ozon Pay, VTB Pay, Alfa Pay or Tinkoff Pay, each of which offers convenience in using electronic payments, including non-contact, non-internet, non-plastic, recognition by smile, face, voice and other biometric data.
The analysis of discussion about the structural and functional characteristics of digital ecosystems in the banking and related sectors of the economy leads to the following conclusions.
Firstly, the comparison of the digital banking ecosystems of Sberbank, Tinkoff, VTB revealed both some commonality and specifics. The digital platform of PAO Sberbank is more focused on individuals, has an intersectoral nature and includes a substantial number of non-financial participants in the digital ecosystem; AO Tinkoff Bank is inclined to develop its ecosystem towards the inclusion of investment and educational components, gradually moving from a niche model to a universal set of non-financial services; VTB Bank's digital ecosystem has chosen the housing programme as the core of its ecosystem; therefore, all non-financial partners provide comprehensive services in this market segment.
1 Partner Platform of Alfa-Bank JSC. Super service inside the bank. https://messageguru.ru/31581/. (In Russ.)
2 QIWI has been operating in the Russian Federation and CIS countries and abroad since 2007. (In Russ.)
3 QIWI has limited cash withdrawals and withdrawals at the request of the Central Bank. https://www.rbc.ru/fi nances/25/07/2023/64c02c959a79478439d808ba. (In Russ.)
Secondly, not only banking, but also non-banking players are entering the Russian ecosystem products market (IT and telecom companies including Yandex, VK, MTS, Megafon; retail, e-commerce and logistics companies including Ozon, Wildberries, X5 Retail Group, CDEK, etc.), which blurs industry and market boundaries between financial and non-financial digital ecosystems, intensifying digital competition between them. In Russia, combined mechanisms and methods of forming financial and non-financial digital ecosystems are used (universal, niche, outsourcing and insourcing). The proposed matrix of financial and non-financial digital ecosystems allows us to systematise the interaction between various banking and non-banking players in the market.
Thirdly, the toolkit proposed by the regulator for a risk-sensitive maximum for managing non-core assets of banks shows that currently profit growth of even the largest banks PAO Sberbank, AO Tinkoff Bank and VTB Bank (PAO) is not enough to meet all the requirements of the regulator, which indicates the need to refine the methodological and organisational issues of managing non-core assets ofbanks. In addition, the regulatory tools for non-core assets of banks push credit and non-credit organisations to switch to external and partner mechanisms for the formation of ecosystem products, trying not to use or minimise direct purchases of assets of future participants.
Conclusion
The retrospective analysis of the literature provided the basic characteristics of the concept "banking ecosystem" and allowed classifying the methodological approaches to interpreting it according to such elements as the structure of a digital banking ecosystem, the peculiarities and nature of the relationship between its participants. The study revealed the specifics of target parameters of digital banking ecosystems' development as well as clarified their functioning sources, and justified the variability of configuration of their participants.
The theoretical significance of the findings lies in expanding the traditional understanding of a banking system functioning compared to classical, cluster and network approaches to studying organisations. It seems that this could complement the ideas about the organisational and market boundaries of the banking system's development.
The practical significance of the results is due to the possibility of using methodological tools for assessing the banks' immobilised assets, as well as due to demonstrating the need to improve accounting and organisational processes of applying the risk-sensitive maximum to regulate banks' non-core assets considering multiple methods of creating banking ecosystems (universal, niche, outsourcing and insourcing).
In addition, a comparative matrix of financial and non-financial digital ecosystems makes it possible to confirm the tightened competition in the market of ecosystem products and services between the banking and related sectors (the IT and telecom companies, as well as companies from the e-commerce, retail and logistics sectors).
Further studies should investigate the data on Russian banks more comprehensively to provide advice on effective regulatory measures for eliminating and managing cross-sectoral risks in banking ecosystems so as to balance their development, ensure the financial sustainability of banks and maintain the interests of banking services' users.
References
Acs Z. J., Audretsch D. B., Lehmann E. E., Licht G. (2016). National systems of entre-preneurship. Small Business Economics, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 527-535. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11187-016-9705-1.
Andryushin S. A., Grigoryev R. A. (2021). Ecosystem banks: Forms, risks and methods of regulation. Terra Economicus, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 51-65. https://doi.org/10.18522/2073-6606-2021-19-4-51-65. (In Russ.)
Bychkova I. I. (2020). Banking ecosystem: Current trends in the financial sector. Nauch-nyy vestnik Yuzhnogo instituta menedzhmenta = Scientific bulletin of the Southern Institute of Management, no. 1, pp. 42-46. https://doi.org/10.31775/2305-3100-2020-1-42-46. (In Russ.)
Bykanova N. I., Solovey Yu. A., Gordya D. V., Konshina L. A. (2020). Formation of banks ecosystems in conditions of digitalization of banking space. Ekonomika. Informatika = Economics. Information Science, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 91-100. (In Russ.)
Dudin M. N., Shkodinskiy S. V. (2022). Challenges and threats of the digital economy to the sustainability of the national banking system. Finansy: teoriya i praktika = Finance: Theory and Practice, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 52-71. https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2022-26-6-52-71. (In Russ.)
Fatkhutdinova T. F. (2023). Bank as an ecosystem. Proc. 46th Int. Student Sci.-Prac. Conf. "Scientific community of students: Interdisciplinary research" no. 11 (46). https://sibac.info/ studconf/science/xlvi/111067. (In Russ.)
Ganesh S., Kendall A., Olsen T., Amory R. (2022). As digital currencies start to embed in the payments system, what role for banks? https://www.bain.com/insights/as-digital-cur-rencies-start-to-embed-in-the-payments-system-what-role-for-banks/.
Jacobides M., Cennamo C., Gawer A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 2255-2276. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3218233.
Joo J., Eom M., Shin M. (2017). Finding the missing link between corporate social responsibility and firm competitiveness through social capital: A business ecosystem perspective. Sustainability, vol. 9, no. 7, 707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050707.
Kleyner G. B., Rybachuk M. A., Karpinskaya V. A. (2020). Development of ecosystems in the financial sector of Russia. Upravlenets = The Manager, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 2-15. https:// doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2020-11-4-1. (In Russ.)
Mikheeva I. E. (2023). Banking ecosystems in Russia: The concept and background of the appearance. Vestnik Universiteta imeni O. E. Kutafina (MGYuA) = Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)), no. 1 (101), pp. 42-49. https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2023.101.1.042-049. (In Russ.)
Molamusov Z. Kh., Adzhiev D. O. (2021). Features of development of "niche" financial market ecosystems. Vestnik Akademii znaniy = Bulletin of the Academy of Knowledge, no. 45 (4), pp. 400-403. https://doi.org/10.24412/2304-6139-2021-11393. (In Russ.)
Moore J. F. (1998). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. New York: Harper Collins. 127 p.
Okello Candiya Bongomin G., Yourougou P., Munene J. C. (2020). Digital financial innovations in the twenty-first century: Do transaction tax exemptions promote mobile money services for financial inclusion in developing countries? Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 185-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeas-01-2019-0007.
Ramenskaya L. A. (2020). The concept of ecosystem in economic and management studies. Upravlenets = The Manager, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 16-28. https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2020-11-4-2. (In Russ.)
Rothschild M. (1990). Bionomics. Economy as ecosystem. New York: Henry Holt and Company Inc. 423 p.
Rudskaya E. N., Shikolenko A. G. (2019). Banking area as a digital ecosystem: Problems and trends. Ekonomika i biznes: teoriya i praktika = Journal of Economy and Business, no. 9, pp. 141-144. https://doi.org/10.24411/2411-0450-2019-11178. (In Russ.)
Samiev P. A., Zakirova V. R., Shvandar D. V. (2020). Ecosystems and marketplaces: Overview of the financial services market. Finansovyy zhurnal = Financial Journal, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 92-104. https://doi.org/10.31107/2075-1990-2020-5-86-98. (In Russ.)
Sankha S., Ram V. (2020). The inverted bank: How platforming helps exploit ecosystems. Journal of Digital Banking, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 83-93.
Sedykh N. V., Markin P. A. (2023). Ecosystem development as a trend of banking business transformation. Estestvenno-gumanitarnye issledovaniya= Natural and Human Studies, no. 1 (45), pp. 351-353. (In Russ.)
Senyo P., Liu K., Effah J. (2019). Digital business ecosystem: Literature review and a framework for future research. International Journal of Information Management, vol. 47, pp. 52-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.002.
Shelkunova T. G., Kravchenko R. Yu., Nechaev D. I. (2023). The ecosystem of the digital economy in the banking sector. Estestvenno-gumanitarnye issledovaniya = Natural-Humanitarian Studies, no. 45 (1), pp. 365-368. (In Russ.)
Shkhalakhova S. Yu., Przhedetskaya N. V. (2021). Alternative payment services in innovative digital transformation of modern banking. Vestnik Rostovskogo gosudarstvennogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta (RINKh) = Bulletin of Rostov State University (RINH), no. 2 (74), pp. 206-216. (In Russ.)
Stefanelli V., Manta F. (2023). Digital financial services and open banking innovation: Are banks becoming 'invisible'? Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 09721509231151491.
Sviridov O. Yu., Badmaeva B. S. (2019). Development of bank ecosystems on the basis of digital technologies. Gosudarstvennoe i munitsipal'noe upravlenie. Uchenye zapiski = State and Municipal Management Scholar Notes, no. 3, pp. 176-181. https://doi.org/10.22394/2079-1690-2019-1-3-176-181. (In Russ.)
Tansley A. G. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms Ecology, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 284-307.
Teng S., Khong K. W. (2021). Examining actual consumer usage of E-wallet: A case study of big data analytics. Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 121, 106778. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106778.
Timmers P. (1998). Business models for electronic markets. Electronic Markets, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 3-8.
Tsujimoto M., Kajikawa Y., Tomita J., Matsumoto Y. (2017). A review of the ecosystem concept - Towards coherent ecosystem design. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 136, pp. 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032.
Vakhrushev D. S., Kalsin A. E., Nidershtrat G. D. (2021). Digitalization as a factor in the formation of banking ecosystems: Modern trends and current regulation issues. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika i upravlenie = Bulletin of the Tver State University. Series: Economics and Management, no. 4 (56), pp. 91-103. https://doi. org/10.26456/2219-1453/2021.4.091-103. (In Russ.)
Valkokari K. (2015). Business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems: How they differ and how to survive and thrive within them. Technology Innovation Management Review, vol. 5, no. 8, pp.17-24.
Viswanadham N., Samvedi A. (2013). Supplier selection based on supply chain ecosystem, performance and risk criteria. International Journal of Production Research, vol. 51, no. 21, pp 6484-6498, https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.825056.
West J., Wood D. (2013). Evolving an open ecosystem: The rise and fall of the Symbi-an platform. Collaboration and Competition in Business Ecosystems (Advances in Strategic Management), vol. 30, pp. 27-67. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-3322(2013)0000030005.
Wulf A., Butel L. (2017). Knowledge sharing and collaborative relationships in business ecosystems and networks: A definition and a demarcation. Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 117, no. 7, pp. 1407-1425. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2016-0408.
Yudaruddin R. (2023). Bank lending during the COVID-19 pandemic: Do alliances and digital strategies matter? Managerial Finance, vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1221-1238. https://doi. org/10.1108/MF-04-2022-0167.
Zabala Aguayo A., Slusarczyk B. (2020). Risks of banking services' digitalization: The practice of diversification and sustainable development goals. Sustainability, vol. 12, 4040. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12104040.
Zokirov M. A. (2019). Banking ecosystem: The need to build them under tightening competition in retail business. Innovatsii i investitsii = Innovation & Investment, no. 9, pp. 194-197. (In Russ.)
Zott C., Amit R., Massa L. (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 1019-1042. https://doi. org/10.1177/0149206311406265.
Zverev A. V., Bespalov R. A., Bespalova O. V. (2022). Ecosystems of Russian banks. Moscow. 102 p. (In Russ.)
Information about the author Svetlana S. Galazova, Dr. Sc. (Econ.), Prof., Prof. of Economics Dept. Kosta Levanovich Khetagurov North Ossetia State University, Vladikavkaz, Russia. E-mail: bubu1999@ mail.ru
© Galazova S. S., 2023
