The rapid growth of FinTech has improved efficiency, access, and product innovation, while also introducing numerous ethical challenges such as algorithmic bias, opaque decision logic, and mismatches with cultural expectations. This study introduces the Integrated Ethical Governance Framework (IEGF). It is designed to link broad ethical principles with practical, compliance-oriented regulations. The IEGF draws on Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue-ethics foundations and incorporates applied governance tools including fairness auditing, ethical scorecards, participatory ethics training, and mechanisms for continuous oversight. Using comparative analysis of regulatory documents from the European Union, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia (2016–2024), the study examines how current measures reflect right based, outcomes based and virtue-based ethics. The findings show that current regulatory measures tend to emphasize rights and outcome-based ethics, especially in matters of data protection and societal welfare. However, relatively little explicit attention is given to virtue ethics reasoning or to the implementation of structured ethical instruments. As such, the IEGF functions both as a diagnostic lens – assessing the ethical depth of existing governance – and as a prescriptive framework for embedding accountability, cultural awareness, and ethical resilience into FinTech systems. The study's goals are to: (1) develop an ethical governance framework that ties abstract theory to real-world practice; (2) examine regulatory alignment across jurisdictions; (3) identify conceptual and operational shortcomings; and (4) demonstrate how the IEGF can reinforce transparency, inclusivity, and adaptability in digital finance. The results suggest that the IEGF can help regulators and innovators align universal ethical principles with local norms, supporting FinTech ecosystems that are both trusted and innovation-friendly.
Alkhouri et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: