Fuzzy Delphi_Transparency, trust, responsibility and values in banking_RESULTS 2025 VALUE BASED BANKS VS NON VALUE BASED BANKS

The dataset comprises two purposively selected client panels participating in a three-round Delphi process: 12 clients of a value-based bank (VB) and 13 clients of non-value-based banks (NOVB). The panels were designed to compare how financially experienced clients from different institutional contexts interpret four dimensions of the advisory relationship: transparency, trust, responsibility, and alignment with values. The purpose of the dataset is therefore not to provide a statistically representative picture of all retail investors, but to capture informed judgements, identify stable patterns of agreement, and reveal differences between clients whose banking relationships are embedded in distinct organisational models. Participants were selected according to their educational background, investment experience, and familiarity with financial products. The VB panel was gender-balanced, with 50% women and 50% men, and approximately two-thirds of participants held postgraduate qualifications. Their average self-assessed financial expertise was 7.17 on a ten-point scale. The NOVB panel included approximately 45% women and 55% men, and all participants held postgraduate qualifications. Their average self-assessed financial expertise was 6.54. Most participants in both groups were middle-aged and had invested during the previous twelve months. These characteristics strengthen the suitability of the panels for Delphi analysis because respondents were able to evaluate the advisory process on the basis of prior knowledge and direct investment experience. However, they also imply that the dataset may underrepresent the difficulties experienced by less educated, less financially literate, or more vulnerable retail clients. The questionnaire contained 17 five-point Likert items organised into four conceptual blocks. The first block measured transparency and information through four items assessing whether the information received was sufficient for investment decisions, whether risks and possible scenarios were explained comprehensibly, whether costs and commissions were understood, and whether suitability questionnaires genuinely assessed the client’s investor profile. This dimension captures the distinction between information formally delivered and information effectively understood. The second block examined trust and the relationship with the institution through four items. These items assessed whether advisers prioritised the client’s interests, whether clients felt free to question or reject recommendations, whether risk profiles and objectives were reviewed frequently enough, and whether information should be supplemented with graphical, simulation-based, or scenario-based resources. Trust was therefore treated not simply as confidence in the adviser, but as a relational condition involving accessibility, voice, continuity, and the ability to challenge professional recommendations. The third block addressed responsibility through four items. Participants evaluated their awareness that final investment decisions remained their responsibility, the institution’s responsibility to offer products consistent with the investor profile, the extent to which consent forms generated real understanding, and the importance of client financial education in reducing unsuitable decisions. This block was designed to distinguish formal responsibility from substantive responsibility. A client may legally accept responsibility while still lacking the knowledge required to understand the product, just as an institution may complete the required documentation without ensuring informed consent. The fourth block measured alignment with values through five items, making it the largest dimension in the instrument. It assessed perceived honesty in information and advice, the contribution of products to solidarity and social cohesion, the closeness of the institution’s relationship with clients, the professionalism of investment recommendations, and the client’s identification with the cooperative values promoted by the institution. This block is especially important for the VB panel because it evaluates whether declared institutional values are visible in actual products, relationships, and advisory practices. The three-round design generated both longitudinal and comparative information. In the first round, all participants independently evaluated the complete set of items and provided qualitative comments. Aggregated results were then returned to the panels, allowing participants to reconsider their responses in light of the group view. Dimensions reaching acceptable consensus were closed, whereas those showing persistent disagreement proceeded to the next round. Consequently, the dataset is adaptive rather than a simple balanced panel in which every item is necessarily repeated three times. Among VB clients, transparency, trust, and responsibility stabilised earlier, while alignment with values required an additional round. Among NOVB clients, responsibility remained the principal area requiring further reconsideration. Each Likert response was transformed into a triangular fuzzy number, enabling the analysis to preserve the gradual and uncertain nature of client judgements. The dataset therefore contains raw Likert responses, fuzzy representations, participant-to-group distances, consensus percentages, defuzzified importance scores, and qualitative explanations. Open responses add an interpretive layer by identifying reasons for disagreement and practical improvement priorities, including adviser continuity, clearer product comparisons, market contextualisation, adapted communication, post-sale monitoring, and more frequent investor-profile reviews. Overall, the dataset provides a structured comparison of how VB and NOVB clients understand the same four dimensions across repeated rounds. The VB panel generally displays stronger perceptions of personalised profiling, freedom to reject recommendations, responsibility awareness, and institutional value alignment. The NOVB panel shows relative strengths in selected technical and monitoring aspects. Nevertheless, both groups identify room for improvement across all four dimensions, confirming that favourable perceptions and high consensus do not imply that the advisory process is considered complete or fully effective.