Cash On Delivery (COD) As An Alternative Payment Method For ECommerce Transactions Analysis and Implications

International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development
Volume 10 • Issue 4 • October-December 2018
Cash on Delivery (COD) as an

Alternative Payment Method for
E-Commerce Transactions:
Analysis and Implications
Mohanad Halaweh, Al Falah University, Dubai, UAE
ABSTRACT
Since the emergence of the World Wide Web, various payment methods for e-commerce
transactions have evolved rapidly over time, including credit cards, debit cards, smart
cards, e-cash, e-checks, and e-wallets. In recent years, however, the use of cash-on-
delivery (COD) has increased. This differs from all other methods of payment in terms
of processing, time and place of payment, and parties involved, as well as security and
privacy assurance. The aim of this article was to compare COD to other e-payment
methods and to consider the implications of COD for both customers and e-vendors.
The article also discusses implications for e-commerce practice and highlights areas
for future research.
Keywords
Cash on Delivery (COD), E-commerce, E-payment, Online Payment
INTRODUCTION
Cash on delivery (COD) enables the customer to make a cash payment when a product
is delivered to their home or to a location of their choosing. This is sometimes called
a “post payment” system because the customer receives the goods before making a
payment (Rouibah, 2015). COD has become increasingly popular in recent years in
India, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries, Thailand, Vietnam, and Poland
(Copenhagen Economics, 2013; Hamid, 2014; International Finance Corporation, 2014;
Nair, 2016; Rouibah, 2015). In India, for example, COD accounts for 50–80% of online
transaction payments (Ernst & Young, 2013); in the United Arab Emirates, the figure
is about 60% (Hamid, 2014). In Vietnam, COD was accepted by 24 of 33 surveyed
DOI: 10.4018/IJSKD.2018100101

Copyright © 2018, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

1
companies (73%) (International Finance Corporation, 2014). However, most of the

published material about COD has appeared in newspapers or magazines or on websites,
with few scientific studies to date. Among research articles, most have investigated
e-payment methods more generally rather than focusing on COD in particular. Among
the few exceptions, Halaweh (2017) conducted empirical research on adoption of COD
for e-commerce transactions from the customer’s perspective. He noted that despite
the increasing use of this payment method, few studies have investigated the reasons
for customer intention to adopt, and that further research is needed into the use of
COD for online shopping. Halaweh (in press) reiterated this point in an evaluation
of e-commerce websites in the Arab world that accept this payment method, noting
that scientific research on COD from the perspective of e-commerce companies is
especially scarce. The present study discusses the broader implications of COD from
different stakeholder perspectives, including the customer, e-commerce companies,
and logistics companies, drawing on literature reviews, e-magazines, white papers,
market research reports, and the author’s own knowledge. This study also identifies
managerial implications for e-commerce firms and directions for future research.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section reviews the literature on
e-commerce payment methods, and the research methodology is then described.
Following a discussion of the implications of COD for customers, the next section
explores the advantages and disadvantages for merchants who accept this payment
method. The implications for e-commerce research and practice are then discussed,
followed by conclusions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
An online payment or e-payment is initiated, processed, and received electronically

via the Internet. Methods of payment used in e-commerce transactions include credit
cards, prepaid cards, smart cards, e-cash (digital cash), and e-checks (digital checks),
all of which are also mobile-enabled. While credit card is the most common e-payment
method globally (Kou, 2013), existing research has identified COD as one of the
preferred e-commerce payment methods in countries such as India, Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, and UAE (Gangeshwer, 2013; Makki & Chang, 2015; Yaseen et al., 2016;
Halaweh, 2017; Halaweh, in press).
According to previous research, the critical factors in customers’ reluctance to
participate in e-commerce transactions or to use existing e-payment methods are
trust, security, and perceived risk (Bolt, Humphrey, & Uittenbogaard, 2005; Daştan
& Gürler, 2016; Hamid & Cheng, 2013; Halaweh and Fidler, 2008; Kim, Tao, Shin,
& Kim, 2010; Lee, Yu, & Ku, 2001; Lim, Lee, & Kurnia, 2007; Özkan, Bindusara,
& Hackney, 2010). A further issue is that e-payments also generate information that
can be used to analyze customer purchasing behavior or for other purposes that may
violate customer privacy. Other important concerns found to affect general acceptance
of e-payment methods include cost, usability, simplicity (complexity), and availability
2
or acceptance by e-commerce websites. However, database searches for relevant

research papers returned relatively few results focusing on the adoption and use of
COD payments in an e-commerce context.
In an empirical study, Halaweh (2017) reported that trust and a sense of security
and privacy were the main influences on customer intention to choose COD. The
findings indicated that customers perceived e-commerce websites offering the COD
option as more trustworthy because they can verify the ordered items before paying,
unlike e-payments using a credit card, for example, which are made in advance.
Halaweh’s (2017) findings also revealed that customers using COD felt less vulnerable
to online security threats or to opportunistic or predatory behavior by e-commerce
website operators. They also felt they had more control of their privacy when using
COD, as they did not have to provide sensitive information about themselves, their
credit card, or their purchases.
Halaweh (in press) reviewed twelve popular e-commerce websites in the Arab world
from the vendor’s perspective to assess the level of acceptance of COD. Surprisingly,
the findings revealed that all of the surveyed websites offered COD in addition to
other e-payment options. However, there was no consistency in the use of signs/icons/
images to indicate acceptance of this payment method, and the e-commerce websites
in question had no clear policies in this regard.
It is not intended to focus here on other e-payment methods that have already
been sufficiently addressed in the existing literature. Yu, His, and Kuo’s (2002)
thorough comparison and evaluation of various e-payment methods such as smart
card, e-cash, e-check, and online credit card was a key source for the comparison
criteria that inform Table 1. However, this paper focuses on the differences between
COD and all other e-payment methods, as COD is completely different in terms of
processing, time and place of payment, and parties involved, as well as security and
privacy assurance. The implications of using this method are discussed in detail in
subsequent sections.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
As a conceptual study, the present paper does not include any primary empirical data.
Instead, it combines a literature review and the authors’ own knowledge and experience
of COD. The literature review drew on the Google Scholar and Scopus databases to
identify research papers that focus on COD in an e-commerce context. In light of the
scarcity of results, a number of appropriate citations from white papers, magazines,
and market research reports were also utilized to illustrate the current state of COD
and to support the arguments developed here. This exploratory review facilitated
theoretical inferences and served to identify benefits and concerns for e-commerce
stakeholders in deciding whether to adopt this payment method. As previous reviews
of the literature on e-commerce payments were less focused on COD, the aim was to
bridge this knowledge gap.
3
Table 1. Comparison of e-commerce payment methods (Source: author)
e-Payment
Criteria Cash on Delivery
Credit Card Debit Card e-check Smart Card e-cash
(COD)
Bank customers Anyone. The

Bank Anyone.
Bank customers who have Customers who customer does not
customers who The customer does not
Users who have a sufficient money have a bank have to have a bank
have a bank have to have a bank
credit card in their bank account account or credit
account account or credit card.
accounts card.
Yes. Depends
No. Depends on No. Depends
on the bank’s No. Depends on No. Depends on No.
the amount of on prepaid
policy and the cash available prepaid cash saved No conditions or
Amount Limit cash available in cash saved to
conditions and in the customer’s to or loaded on the restrictions are
the customer’s or loaded on
the customer’s bank account e-cash account applied.
bank account the card
salary
Actual payment Paid at the time of

Paid later Prepaid Paid later Prepaid Prepaid
time delivery (offline)
Bank
Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
involvement
Yes. A bank is
not involved,
but e-commerce
No. Customer No. Customer No. Customer No. Customer
websites or a third Yes. A bank is not
Customer transactions can transactions can transactions can transactions
party (e-cash involved. No third
Anonymity be tracked by be tracked by the be tracked by the can be tracked
account provider) party is involved.
the bank bank bank. by the bank
can obtain
information about
the customer.
For all types

For all types of
of purchases
purchases with
and when the
limitations regarding
customer willing Especially
For all types of For all types of For all types digital goods.
Appropriateness is to have his appropriate for
purchases purchases of purchases May be costly for the
or her money small purchases
merchant to manage
immediately
the cash collection
withdrawn from
process
his account
Medium. Medium.
The customer The customer
High. Medium. The
bears the risk of bears the risk, but
The customer customer Low. Less risky as
losing the credit he can stop the
might lose all of might lose usually the amount
card amount check payment at No risk for customers.
the money saved the amount of is limited to the
Risk level (Low, only if the card any time (unlike Low risk for the
in his or her money saved amount of money
Medium, High) is stolen or other methods, merchant who handles
bank account if on the card in one’s bank
misused. The where hackers the cash
the debit card if the card account (debit
bank might might steal the
is stolen or is stolen or card).
share that risk amount before
misused. misused.
or cover the the customer
customer’s loss. recognizes it).
Difficult to use
Common
internationally. Is
like credit
becoming more
cards but is
Common but Common but widely used in some
Most common. becoming
Acceptance not preferred by Least common. has not reached countries, especially
Almost all more
by users and the customer as Requires international for customers who do
websites accept widespread
e-commerce the impact of international standardization. not have a credit card
credit card and preferable
websites any loss can be standardization. Might be used or a bank account or
payments. as it is more
high. locally. want to protect their
secure than
privacy and avoid any
magnetic strip
monetary fraud and
credit cards.
security risks.
Place of usage: Online and Online and Online and

Online Online and offline Offline
Online/Offline offline offline offline
Computer
interface skills Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
required
4
Using COD: Implications for the Customer

In discussing the implications of COD from the e-commerce customer’s perspective, it
is first important to understand their motivation in choosing this method of payment.
According to previous research, the critical factors in customers’ reluctance to use
existing e-payment methods are perceived risk and a lack of trust and security.
Nevertheless, customers remain interested in buying certain products from e-commerce
websites when these are only available online or are cheaper than those offered in brick-
and-mortar stores. COD allows these customers to access such products by offering a
more convenient and secure method of payment that also allows them to inspect the
product’s quality at the time of delivery. This assurance in respect of delivery and
payment is advantageous when compared to online payment methods.
In poorer countries where fewer customers have credit cards or bank accounts,
COD is a useful alternative that allows them to purchase products online. In addition,
customers feel they have more control of their privacy when using COD because they do
not have to release too much information about themselves or their purchases, and banks
and e-commerce websites are unable to track the history of their cash transactions.
To protect their privacy and avoid tracking, customers need only provide their mobile
phone number to receive a product at any location (e.g., at work, at home, or in any
public place). When a customer uses a credit card, every transaction is recorded; banks,
merchants, or third parties can obtain this information and use it to track purchasing
behaviors, interests, or preferences, which some regard as an invasion of customer
privacy. A further advantage of COD over other e-payment methods (credit, debit,
and smart cards) is that the latter can subsequently be used to track the customer
while COD can preserve their anonymity. As one example of tracking, a bank may
ask a customer to enter the address saved in the bank database’s records to verify
their identity. In contrast, customers who use COD do not even have to disclose their
email address to receive the product (unless they so desire), giving them more control
over the information they receive while those who use other methods of payment are
likely to receive newsletters, marketing materials, or other unsolicited information.
Although more convenient for some customers, e-commerce payment methods
always incur additional costs such as merchant fees for delivery or cash collection.
It is also important to note that as many specialized shipping companies offer only
delivery, a cash collection option is not available. E-commerce companies therefore
require sales representatives to complete both delivery and payment activities; the only
other option is to employ a third party to collect the payment, which may cost more
and is not always an option. In such cases, the merchant is likely to cover the extra
costs by charging the customer more. However, many customers may be willing to
pay a little extra to protect their privacy and credit card security, as well as receiving
exactly what they want even though they may not actually purchase the product at
the time of delivery.
A further important implication of using COD relates to digital goods and the
delivery and payment processes for digital products that are delivered electronically.
While payment can still be made face-to-face as in the case of physical goods, delivery
5
of a digital product, such as a movie, software, or an e-book, will differ unless the
sales representative downloads the goods to the customer’s laptop before receiving
the cash. This is likely to prove inconvenient, as customers would have to commit to
a certain day and time for delivery, which negates the purpose of digital goods as a
more flexible and convenient way of shopping and delivery.
In such a purchasing scenario, an additional concern is the customer’s willingness
to allow someone to download something to their laptop, which may raise security
and privacy issues. While some consumers might take the risk if a company is well
known and has a good reputation, this is unlikely to convince every customer. As a
further alternative, the sales representative might first accept the cash before providing
a download link for the customer, who could then use the digital product while the
representative waits to ensure that it is installed and functioning successfully. The
issue of delivery becomes even more difficult when purchasing a service such as a
flight or movie tickets, or government services. The transaction could be conducted
in the same way as for digital goods, but this would cost more because of support
and logistics requirements, again negating the essential advantages of e-commerce
and online shopping.
One disadvantage of using COD is that the customer may miss out on points
earned when using a credit or debit card for online payments. Banks and shops often
incentivize the use of cards for online shopping by offering points that can be redeemed
for cash, flight miles, or other rewards. Alternatively, customers might receive a 0%
interest period on credit card purchases for products above a certain value, making
it advantageous for those with cash liquidity problems to use a credit card rather
than COD for online purchases. However, the choice will ultimately depend on the
customer’s values and needs; they may value security, anonymity, privacy, and trust
more than the points or gifts awarded for using a credit card online.
Finally, for novice online shoppers, COD is likely to seem preferable; as
orders can be placed by phone; delivery is physical, and payment is completed
offline, COD requires no knowledge or experience of computers, web interfaces,
or e-payment applications.
Using COD: Implications for eCommerce Companies

From the e-commerce merchant’s perspective, COD was initially offered to satisfy
different customers’ preferences, reaching those without credit cards and those who
are reluctant to use their credit cards online or simply do not trust online shopping. By
offering COD as a payment option, e-commerce companies can target more customers
and so increase sales. However, offering this method of payment requires additional
logistics and effort. There are two options for handling delivery and payment processes.
First, the e-commerce company can hire people to deliver the product, collect the
cash, and make digital downloads or services available to customers, which requires
technical and domain-specific skills. This means that the company will need to add a
small amount to its profit margin to cover these costs. However, a minimum purchase
6
amount would be required to make the transaction feasible; for example, consumers are
unlikely to be willing to pay a $3 delivery charge for a product that costs only $1 or $2.
Rather than charging for COD, a company might instead decide to offer free
delivery, covering costs by completing a large number of COD transactions. A
merchant might also raise prices or sell only higher-priced products to cover the
costs of delivery. However, in choosing this option, there is the added risk that cash
could be stolen or lost, especially where company representatives must visit multiple
customers. Additionally, there are time costs associated with taking deliveries, making
change, and collecting cash.
As another option, companies might choose to assign these tasks to a third party.
This would again cost the company money and might prove difficult in the case
of digital goods or products that require installation, requiring the involvement of
technical support personnel.
Although offering the COD method may incur additional costs, it may also
save money in certain circumstances. For example, many fast food restaurants now
encourage customers to order their food online, paying at the time of delivery. This
version of COD reduces the number of customer service representatives needed to
take customer orders, especially at peak times. However, there is a higher risk for
companies that sell perishable food; if the customer does not pay when the order is
placed online, they might not pay on delivery. As a result, the ordered food would be
returned to the restaurant and would not be suitable for resale.
COD can also save money for e-commerce companies by eliminating the need to
integrate an online system for processing credit cards, which would incur third-party
fees. Many e-commerce websites minimize these costs by offering multiple payment
methods. Merchants should therefore compare the costs of employing agents to deliver
their product and collecting cash against fees paid for credit card payment processing.
Some third-party online payment systems like PayPal apply a charge only when a
transaction occurs, so minimizing fees as compared to direct credit card processing.
By eliminating these costs, COD can help e-commerce companies to maximize profits.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE
If the COD payment method gains wide acceptance among e-commerce companies,
new and related business models may emerge, or existing ones may be transformed.
As the COD process actually involves several processes, including delivery, payment,
and perhaps technical support, new service companies may be needed to handle all
these processes. For example, existing shipping companies such as Uber or Careem
might opt to extend their core business activity (shipping/delivery) to include cash
collection and technical support. As COD is usually limited by geographical location,
these companies could offer new services and help to build customer trust, as merchants
employing these third parties would probably gain acceptance in the manner of other
companies like Verisign, PayPal, and Trustee. A special logo should be created to
7
indicate this payment option on the company’s website to attract customers and build
their trust in buying a product or service.
One important concern that may arise in relation to COD is that some products
can only be legally purchased by adults. This is not usually an issue for credit card
payments, which generally require cardholders to be at least 18 years of age (as
authenticated, for instance, by SMS). In the case of COD, the delivery person would
need to check the customer’s identification card to verify their age, as failure to do
so for any reason (e.g., oversight, time saving) would raise legal and ethical issues.
A further legal issue associated with COD is the potential for e-commerce
companies to hide transactions to avoid paying sales taxes. While other online payment
methods and systems can be tracked, it is more difficult to monitor COD transactions.
A customer might also enable this behavior; for example, if there was a limited chance
to return the item, an invoice might not be required. For that reason, governments must
regulate the use of this method in e-commerce payment transactions—for example,
when licensing e-commerce websites that accept this method, a maximum limit on the
amount of cash for purchases made using COD would minimize the impact of loss or
fraud. There is also a risk that COD payments could promote money laundering; as
criminals would not have to open a bank account or request a credit card, they could
avoid questions about the source of their money and make purchases without disclosing
their identity to banks or government authorities.
In addition to government regulations, e-commerce websites has a direct role to
play in handling COD transactions in a responsible way, complying with all relevant
legal and ethical principles. It might become problematic if a company were to promote
COD as the exclusive method of payment in order to avoid taxes or tracking of its sales.
In this regard, merchants should prioritize ethics rather than business objectives; for
example, while a company might advertise COD to achieve a competitive advantage
over other e-commerce websites, other methods of payment such as credit card or
PayPal should also be accepted to satisfy all customer preferences and needs.
To avoid the risks associated with exchanging and handling cash, and to limit cash
amounts accepted for COD transactions, e-commerce websites might offer a variant
of COD called “Card on Delivery,” offering payment on delivery but using a wireless
credit card machine instead of cash. However, this process may prove more costly
than COD because of the fees associated with credit card processing; it may also fail
to meet the needs or preferences of customer who do not have a credit card or a bank
account or who prefer to protect their privacy and anonymity by paying with cash.
For the merchant, there is the additional risk that the transaction may not be
completed if a customer places an order but then refuses to accept delivery. To cover
the associated costs, the merchant might add an extra delivery charge to be paid
regardless of purchase completion. Table 2 summarizes the issues that influence COD
transactions from both customer and e-vendor perspectives.
This paper conceptualizes the motivations of customers and merchants for using
COD and the implications for both of using this payment method. Those motivations
include privacy, security, trust, convenience, cost, and competitive advantage, and
8
Table 2. Reasons, risks, and limitations of using COD for e-commerce (Source: author)
Customer Merchant (e-commerce website)

• Security • Reach a large number of customers with
• Privacy different needs and preferences
• Trust • Provide a competitive advantage over
Reasons (advantages) of usage • No need for a credit card those who do not offer this service
• No need for a bank account • Eliminate credit card processing costs
• Does not require computer/interface or fees paid to a third party e-payment
interaction skills provider
• No points/rewards gained as with • Cash collection, handling, and exchange
credit/debit cards • Compliance with ethical and legal rules
• Cash availability and liquidity with • Cost of the logistics (delivery, payment,
the customer support) to cover this or to be paid to a
• Inconvenient when buying digital third party
goods as the customer must be available • Customers might not buy the product
Risks (disadvantages) and
at a certain day and time for delivery or make the payment after inspecting the
limitations of usage
• Buying digital goods or electronic product at the delivery time, which is a
services waste of resources
• Not yet acceptable for foreign delivery • Selling digital goods or electronic
(only for a local geographical area) services
• Not yet acceptable for foreign delivery
(only for a local geographical area)
future empirical research should investigate these constructs, using quantitative and
qualitative data to clarify how they influence the use of COD. Despite the increase
in use of COD in some countries, the literature search revealed that studies of this
method of payment in e-commerce contexts remain limited, and further research
is needed to fully understand its adoption and use by e-commerce merchants and
customers worldwide. Future research should also investigate other motives for
using this payment method for e-commerce purchases in relation to geographic and
cultural context. Future research might usefully conduct appropriate case studies of
e-commerce websites that accept this payment method, comparing the total number of
COD transactions for each website with other types of e-payment methods to assess
whether COD enables companies to reach more customers and increase sales. Research
of this kind can help existing and future e-commerce firms to make better decisions
in relation to this payment method.
CONCLUSION
This is one of the few academic papers to address COD as a payment method
for e-commerce transactions from both customer and merchant perspectives.
The main research findings (summarized in Tables 1 and 2) make a unique
contribution to the literature, extending knowledge about this payment method
in the context of e-commerce.
As cyber fraud increases and convincing preventive measures have not yet emerged,
COD e-commerce payments are likely to witness continued growth. In specific
situations, COD may represent the best option for certain customers and e-commerce
9
merchants, but it should be offered alongside other more traditional e-payment methods.
This investigation of the implications of COD for customers, e-commerce companies,
and other stakeholders highlights the associated concerns and issues. In particular, it
seems clear that governments must formulate laws and regulations to control the use
of COD in e-commerce transactions. The implications for e-commerce companies
and professionals in the e-commerce industry were also discussed in an attempt to
facilitate informed decision making. The paper poses questions that have not yet been
answered and confirms the need for further discussion and research.
10
REFERENCES
Bolt, W., Humphrey, D., & Uittenbogaard, R. (2008). Transaction pricing and the
adoption of electronic payments: A cross-country comparison. International Journal
of Central Banking, 89–123.
Copenhagen Economics. (2013). E-commerce and delivery: A study of the state of play
of EU parcel markets with particular emphasis on e-commerce. European Commission,
DG Internal Market and Services.
Daştan, İ., & Gürler, C. (2016). Factors affecting the adoption of mobile payment
systems: An empirical analysis. Emerging Markets Journal, 6(1), 17–24. doi:10.5195/
EMAJ.2016.95
Ernst & Young. (2013). Rebirth of e-Commerce in India. India: Ernst & Young LLP.
Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Rebirth_of_eCommerce_
in_India/%24FILE/EY_RE-BIRTH_OF_ECOMMERCE.pdf
Gangeshwer, D. (2013). E-commerce or Internet Marketing: A business Review from
Indian context. International Journal of u-and eService. Science and Technology,
6(6), 187–194.
Halaweh, M. (2017). Intention to Adopt the Cash on Delivery (COD) Payment Model
for E-commerce Transactions: An Empirical Study. In K. Saeed, W. Homenda, & R.
Chaki (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Vol. 10244. Computer Information
Systems and Industrial Management. CISIM 2017. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
3-319-59105-6_54
Halaweh, M. (in press). Implementation of the COD Payment Method on E-commerce
Websites in the Arab Region. International Journal of Business Information Systems.
Halaweh, M., & Fidler, C. (2008). Adoption of electronic payment systems in
ecommerce websites within Jordan. In Proceeding of IADIS Multi-conference on
Computer Science and Information Systems, 71-77, The Netherlands.
Hamid, N., & Cheng, A. (2013). A Risk Perception Analysis on the use of Electronic
Payment Systems by Young Adult. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and
Applications, 10(1), 26–35.
Hamid, T. (2014). Cash on delivery the biggest obstacle to e-commerce in UAE and
region. The National. Retrieved from http://www.thenational.ae/blogs/plugged-in/
cash-on-delivery-the-biggest-obstacle-to-e-commerce-in-uae-and-region
International Finance Corporation. (2014). E- and M-Commerce and Payment Sector
Development in Vietnam. Retrieved from http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/67a0
740047f652aab0d3f5299ede9589/EMcommerce.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
11
Kim, C., Tao, W., Shin, N., & Kim, K. S. (2010). An empirical study of customers’
perceptions of security and trust in e-payment systems. Electronic Commerce Research
and Applications, 9(1), 84–95. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2009.04.014
Kou, W. (2013). Payment technologies for E-commerce. Springer Science & Business
Media.
Lee, Z., Yu, H., & Ku, P. (2001). An analysis and comparison of different types of
electronic payment systems. Management of Engineering and Technology, 2, 38–45.
Lim, B., Lee, H., & Kurning, S. (2007). Exploring the reasons for a failure of electronic
payment systems: A case study of an Australian company. Journal of Research and
Practice in Information Technology, 39(4), 231–243.
Makki, E., & Chang, L. (2015). E-Commerce Acceptance and Implementation in Saudi
Arabia: Previous, Current and Future Factors. International Journal of Management
Research and Business Strategy, 4(3), 29–44.
Nair, A. (2016). Will CoD kill the Indian e-commerce star? Retrieved from https://
yourstory.com/2016/04/cod-kill-indian-e-commerce/
Ozkan, S., Bindusara, G., & Hackney, R. (2010). Facilitating the adoption of
e-payment system: Theoretical constructs and empirical analysis. Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, 23(3), 305–325. doi:10.1108/17410391011036085
Rouibah, K. (2015). Electronic Payment Systems Use and Satisfaction in an Arabic
Country: Evidence from Kuwait. Issues in Information Systems, 16(II), 149–160.
Yaseen, H., Dingley, K., & Adams, C. (2016). Capturing the growth of e-commerce
in Jordan using a novel research approach. International Journal of Management and
Commerce Innovations, 3(2), 811–827.
Yu, H., His, K., & Kuo, P. (2002). Electronic payment systems: An analysis and
comparison of types. Technology in Society, 24(3), 331–347. doi:10.1016/S0160-
791X(02)00012-X
Mohanad Halaweh is an Associate Professor in Information Systems (IS) at Al Falah University in

Dubai, UAE. He received PhD degree in IS from De Montfort University. He has published more
than 40 articles at international ranked journals and conferences (all in Scopus and/or ABDC
ranking databases). He has also presented papers in many international conferences in IT/IS
field such as ICIS, PACIS and ACIS; a top-tier conferences in IS field. He also received several
research awards. Dr. Halaweh has served as a program committee member and reviewer for
several international journals and conferences, supervised several MS theses, and acted as
external examiner for PhD theses. His research focus is on e-commerce, business value of IT,
IT acceptance and adoption, IT/IS impact, and IT/IS qualitative research methods.
12

Cash On Delivery (COD) As An Alternative Payment Method For ECommerce Transactions Analysis and Implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Cash On Delivery (COD) As An Alternative Payment Method For ECommerce Transactions Analysis and Implications

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cash On Delivery (COD) As An Alternative Payment Method For ECommerce Transactions Analysis and Implications

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development

Volume 10 • Issue 4 • October-December 2018