Abstract
This dissertation investigates employee acceptance of biometric access control systems in workplace environments and identifies the factors that shape perceived legitimacy of such technologies. Employing a systematic literature synthesis methodology, this study analyses peer-reviewed research spanning three decades to determine patterns in workforce attitudes towards biometric authentication. The findings reveal that staff acceptance of biometric systems is conditional rather than automatic, with perceived usefulness, organisational trust, privacy protection, and transparent governance emerging as primary determinants of legitimacy. Employees demonstrate moderate to high acceptance when biometric technologies are framed as security or efficiency tools rather than surveillance mechanisms. However, significant concerns persist regarding data vulnerability, employer monitoring, and potential misuse of sensitive biometric information. Cultural factors, including self-construal orientations and national contexts, further modulate acceptance patterns. The research concludes that organisations seeking to implement biometric access systems must prioritise early communication, employee involvement, robust privacy safeguards, and alignment with organisational culture. These findings hold substantial implications for human resource management, information systems design, and workplace policy development in an increasingly digitised employment landscape.
Introduction
The proliferation of biometric technologies in contemporary workplaces represents a significant transformation in organisational security and access control practices. Biometric systems, which authenticate individuals based on unique physiological or behavioural characteristics such as fingerprints, facial features, iris patterns, or voice recognition, have increasingly supplanted traditional authentication methods including passwords, personal identification numbers, and physical access cards (Jain, Deb and Engelsma, 2021). This technological shift reflects broader organisational imperatives surrounding security enhancement, operational efficiency, and workforce management in digitally-mediated environments.
The adoption of biometric access control systems in workplace contexts raises fundamental questions regarding employee acceptance, privacy rights, and the legitimacy of employer surveillance capabilities. Unlike passwords or identification cards, biometric identifiers are inherently personal, immutable, and irrevocable; once compromised, they cannot be replaced or reset (Carpenter et al., 2016). This distinctive characteristic renders biometric data particularly sensitive and generates unique concerns regarding collection, storage, and potential misuse.
Understanding staff acceptance of workplace biometrics holds considerable academic, practical, and social significance. From an academic perspective, this domain intersects multiple scholarly disciplines including information systems, organisational behaviour, human resource management, and privacy studies. The investigation of biometric acceptance provides valuable insights into technology adoption theories, particularly the conditions under which employees embrace or resist organisationally-mandated technological systems that collect sensitive personal data.
Practically, organisations investing substantial resources in biometric infrastructure require evidence-based guidance regarding implementation strategies that maximise acceptance whilst minimising resistance. Failed biometric implementations not only waste financial resources but may also damage employee relations, trust, and organisational culture (Norris-Jones, 2012). Furthermore, growing regulatory frameworks, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation and various national biometric privacy statutes, impose legal obligations upon employers to demonstrate legitimate purposes and appropriate safeguards for biometric data processing.
Socially, the expansion of workplace biometrics reflects broader tensions between technological efficiency and individual privacy in contemporary society. As workplaces increasingly function as sites of datafication and algorithmic management, understanding employee perspectives on biometric monitoring contributes to wider debates regarding surveillance capitalism, worker autonomy, and the appropriate boundaries of employer authority (Zhang, Zhang and Deng, 2025).
This dissertation addresses a critical gap in synthesised knowledge regarding workplace biometric acceptance by systematically examining existing research to identify consistent patterns, mediating factors, and contextual variations in employee attitudes. The analysis moves beyond simplistic acceptance or rejection dichotomies to explore the nuanced conditions under which biometric systems acquire perceived legitimacy among workforces.
Aim and objectives
Primary aim
This dissertation aims to investigate the extent to which employees accept biometric access control systems in workplace environments and to identify the key factors that shape the perceived legitimacy of such technologies.
Objectives
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide the research:
1. To examine existing empirical evidence regarding levels of employee acceptance and willingness to use biometric access systems across diverse workplace contexts and sectors.
2. To identify and categorise the primary organisational, technological, and individual factors that influence employee perceptions of biometric legitimacy.
3. To analyse the role of trust, privacy concerns, and surveillance anxieties in moderating employee attitudes towards workplace biometric systems.
4. To evaluate how organisational culture, communication practices, and implementation procedures affect acceptance outcomes.
5. To examine cross-cultural and demographic variations in biometric acceptance and their implications for multinational organisations.
6. To synthesise findings into an integrated framework that can inform organisational policy and practice regarding biometric system implementation.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the stated research objectives. Literature synthesis, also termed integrative review, represents an established approach for consolidating existing knowledge on complex phenomena by systematically identifying, analysing, and integrating findings from multiple primary studies (Torraco, 2005). This methodology proves particularly appropriate for examining workplace biometric acceptance, given the multidisciplinary nature of the topic and the need to synthesise insights from information systems, organisational behaviour, psychology, and human resource management literatures.
Search strategy and source selection
The literature search employed multiple academic databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify relevant peer-reviewed publications. Search terms combined biometric terminology (biometric, biometrics, fingerprint recognition, facial recognition, iris scanning) with workplace-related terms (workplace, employee, worker, organisation, organizational) and acceptance-related constructs (acceptance, adoption, legitimacy, perception, attitude). The search encompassed publications from 1995 to 2025, capturing the evolution of workplace biometric technologies and employee responses across three decades.
Inclusion criteria required that sources: (a) address biometric technologies in workplace or organisational contexts; (b) examine employee, worker, or user acceptance, attitudes, or perceptions; (c) appear in peer-reviewed academic journals or reputable conference proceedings; and (d) provide empirical data or substantive theoretical analysis. Sources were excluded if they focused exclusively on technical system performance without addressing human factors, or if they appeared in predatory journals or low-quality publications.
Analytical approach
The analytical process followed established protocols for integrative literature review. Initial screening assessed titles and abstracts for relevance, followed by full-text review of potentially relevant sources. Data extraction captured key findings regarding acceptance levels, influential factors, methodological approaches, and contextual conditions. Thematic analysis identified recurring patterns and relationships across studies, enabling the development of an integrated conceptual framework.
The synthesis prioritised identification of convergent findings across multiple studies whilst acknowledging divergent or context-specific results. Particular attention was paid to the operationalisation of key constructs (acceptance, legitimacy, trust, privacy concern) and the methodological strengths and limitations of contributing studies.
Quality assurance
To ensure rigour, the synthesis adhered to transparency principles regarding source selection, data extraction, and interpretive processes. Critical appraisal considered study design, sample characteristics, measurement validity, and potential biases. The resulting analysis privileges findings supported by multiple independent studies whilst noting areas of limited evidence or methodological inconsistency.
Literature review
Evolution of workplace biometric systems
Biometric technologies for workplace access control have developed substantially since their initial deployment in high-security environments during the 1990s. Early systems primarily utilised fingerprint scanning for time and attendance monitoring, physical access control, and identity verification in sectors requiring enhanced security protocols. Deane et al. (1995) conducted foundational research examining employee perceptions of various biometric modalities, establishing that whilst all biometric methods were less acceptable than traditional passwords, acceptability increased proportionally with the sensitivity of protected resources.
Subsequent technological developments expanded the biometric repertoire available to organisations, incorporating facial recognition, iris scanning, voice authentication, and behavioural biometrics such as keystroke dynamics and gait analysis. Contemporary systems increasingly integrate multiple modalities and connect to enterprise human resource management platforms, enabling comprehensive workforce tracking capabilities (Jain, Deb and Engelsma, 2021). This evolution from discrete security functions to integrated management systems has significantly altered the implications of workplace biometrics for employee privacy and autonomy.
Levels of employee acceptance
Empirical research consistently demonstrates that employee acceptance of workplace biometrics is neither universal rejection nor uncritical endorsement, but rather conditional acceptance mediated by contextual and individual factors. Several workplace and employee samples show moderate to high willingness to use biometrics when systems are framed as security or efficiency tools rather than surveillance mechanisms (Carpenter et al., 2016; Alhussain and Drew, 2009; Ko, 2014; Roxburgh, 2011).
Sectoral studies reveal notable variation in acceptance levels. Research in hospitality contexts found that hotel employees demonstrated majority readiness to adopt biometric systems, particularly when perceived benefits for accurate attendance recording and simplified access were emphasised (Ko, 2014). Healthcare workers in Zambian facilities exhibited eventual acceptance following initial resistance, with practical concerns regarding hygiene and system reliability initially outweighing security benefits (Hamapa et al., 2024). Public sector employees in Saudi Arabia showed variable acceptance depending upon previous technology experience and trust in governmental data protection (Alhussain and Drew, 2009).
More recent consumer research examining willingness to use biometrics across contexts found relatively high acceptance for workplace applications, comparable to transport security contexts but lower than personal device unlocking scenarios (Sipulova, Taborecka and Valova, 2025). This pattern suggests that workplace biometrics occupy an intermediate position in acceptability hierarchies, neither as intimate as personal devices nor as anonymous as public infrastructure.
Perceived usefulness and efficiency benefits
Perceived usefulness emerges consistently as a primary driver of biometric acceptance across diverse organisational contexts. Employees who recognise tangible benefits from biometric systems—including enhanced security, faster access to facilities or systems, accurate attendance recording, and elimination of forgotten passwords or lost cards—demonstrate significantly higher acceptance and behavioural intention to use such technologies (Gupta, Dasgupta and Purushothaman, 2025; Rukhiran, Wong-In and Netinant, 2023).
The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) framework, widely applied in biometric acceptance research, positions perceived usefulness alongside perceived ease of use as fundamental determinants of technology adoption attitudes (Davis, 1989). Studies specifically examining workplace biometrics confirm this relationship whilst noting that usefulness perceptions may be influenced by organisational communication regarding system purposes and benefits (Hamapa et al., 2024).
Importantly, the framing of biometric purposes significantly affects usefulness perceptions. Systems presented as security enhancements or operational efficiency tools generate more positive responses than those perceived as surveillance or disciplinary mechanisms. This framing effect underscores the critical role of organisational communication in shaping acceptance outcomes (Norris-Jones, 2012).
Trust in organisation and technology
Trust operates as a powerful moderator of biometric acceptance, functioning at multiple levels including trust in the employing organisation, trust in the technology itself, and trust in regulatory frameworks governing data protection. Higher organisational trust correlates with more positive attitudes towards biometric systems, whilst distrust and fear of misuse generate resistance and negative behavioural intentions (Carpenter et al., 2016; Zhang, Zhang and Deng, 2025; Alhussain and Drew, 2009).
Jain, Deb and Engelsma (2021) emphasise that biometric systems require verification mechanisms to maintain trust, arguing for a “trust but verify” approach that acknowledges both the benefits and vulnerabilities of biometric authentication. Their analysis highlights that technological trust involves confidence not only in system accuracy but also in data security, resistance to spoofing, and appropriate access controls for stored biometric templates.
Organisational trust dimensions particularly relevant to biometric acceptance include confidence that employers will use collected data only for stated purposes, belief that adequate security measures protect biometric information, and expectation that employees will not face adverse consequences from system errors or data breaches. Research in telecommunications companies demonstrates that perceived trust in biometric-as-a-service platforms significantly mediates the relationship between organisational factors and acceptance (Al-Dalaein and Kasim, 2025).
Privacy concerns and surveillance anxieties
Privacy concerns represent the most significant barrier to workplace biometric acceptance, with multiple studies identifying accountability and vulnerability concerns as predictors of negative attitudes. Employees express concern regarding the collection of inherently personal identifiers, the potential for mission creep beyond stated purposes, and the vulnerability created when biometric data is compromised (Carpenter et al., 2016; Norris-Jones, 2012; Deane et al., 1995).
Surveillance anxieties intensify when biometric systems possess capabilities for continuous monitoring of employee location, behaviour, or productivity. Whilst discrete access control for building entry may generate limited concern, systems that track movement patterns, monitor work rates, or enable retrospective analysis of employee behaviour trigger substantially greater resistance (Roxburgh, 2011). This distinction between authentication and surveillance functions proves critical for understanding acceptance variations.
Carpenter et al. (2016) developed and validated a multidimensional scale measuring biometric privacy concerns, identifying factors including concern about secondary use of data, fear of identity theft, anxiety regarding employer surveillance, and worry about data security breaches. Their research demonstrated that these privacy concerns significantly predicted negative attitudes towards workplace biometric systems even when controlling for perceived benefits.
Organisational culture and implementation procedures
The manner in which organisations introduce and communicate biometric systems substantially affects acceptance outcomes. Involvement of employees in decision-making processes, clear articulation of system purposes, adequate training, and fair implementation procedures legitimise biometric systems and ease adoption (Gupta, Dasgupta and Purushothaman, 2025; Norris-Jones, 2012; Alhussain and Drew, 2009).
Organisational culture dimensions, including power distance, individualism-collectivism, and uncertainty avoidance, shape collective responses to biometric implementation. Research examining espoused cultural values found significant relationships between cultural orientations and acceptance of biometrics-based authentication systems, with implications for multinational organisations implementing standardised systems across diverse cultural contexts (Gupta, Dasgupta and Purushothaman, 2025).
Procedural justice perceptions prove particularly salient for biometric acceptance. Employees evaluate not only the outcomes of biometric systems but also the fairness of implementation processes, including consultation, explanation, and opportunity for input. When biometric systems are imposed without employee involvement or adequate justification, resistance increases even if the technology itself functions effectively (Roxburgh, 2011).
Perceived fairness and employer trust framing
The symbolic meaning attributed to biometric implementation significantly affects employee responses. When biometric systems are perceived as expressions of employer mistrust or mechanisms of control, employee morale may deteriorate even when disciplinary objectives are achieved. Conversely, when systems are framed as neutral efficiency tools or security enhancements benefiting all parties, acceptance improves (Alhussain and Drew, 2009; Weerakkody, 2006; Al-Shamsi, 2024).
Research comparing opinions across American, Australian, and Malaysian samples found that cultural context shaped interpretations of employer motives for biometric implementation. Respondents in some cultural contexts were more likely to interpret biometrics as reasonable security measures, whilst others perceived identical systems as excessive surveillance reflecting employer mistrust (Weerakkody, 2006).
Cultural and demographic variations
Cross-cultural research reveals significant variation in biometric acceptance patterns, indicating that cultural values and national contexts moderate the influence of other factors. Self-construal orientations, distinguishing independent from interdependent self-concepts, shape privacy concerns and acceptance responses (Carpenter et al., 2016). Individuals with more independent self-construal may exhibit heightened sensitivity to privacy threats, whilst those with interdependent orientations may prioritise collective benefits.
Demographic factors including age, education, and prior technology experience also influence acceptance. Research with Generation Z populations in Arab contexts found distinctive acceptance patterns reflecting digital native characteristics and culturally-specific attitudes towards authority and technology (Al-Shamsi, 2024). Notably, some studies suggest that privacy concerns may decline with familiarity and positive experience with biometric systems, indicating that initial resistance may moderate over time (Carpenter et al., 2016).
Discussion
The synthesised evidence addresses the research objectives by revealing consistent patterns in workplace biometric acceptance whilst illuminating the complex interactions among organisational, technological, and individual factors that shape perceived legitimacy.
Conditional nature of acceptance
The findings firmly establish that employee acceptance of biometric access systems is conditional rather than automatic. Staff do not uniformly accept or reject workplace biometrics; rather, acceptance emerges when specific conditions regarding trust, usefulness, privacy protection, and fair implementation are satisfied. This conditionality has significant implications for organisational practice, suggesting that technology quality alone is insufficient to ensure successful adoption.
The moderate to high acceptance levels observed across multiple studies indicate that categorical employee opposition to workplace biometrics is not inevitable. However, the consistent identification of concerns and conditions qualifies this acceptance and warns against assumptions of passive compliance. Organisations must actively cultivate the conditions for acceptance rather than assuming technological inevitability will overcome resistance.
Primacy of perceived usefulness
Perceived usefulness emerges as the most consistent positive predictor of acceptance, confirming the explanatory power of Technology Acceptance Model frameworks in the biometric domain. Employees demonstrate willingness to exchange privacy costs for tangible benefits when those benefits are clearly communicated and personally experienced.
However, the framing of usefulness proves critically important. Benefits positioned at the organisational level (cost savings, fraud reduction) may generate less acceptance than benefits positioned at the individual level (convenience, security). This suggests that organisational communication should emphasise employee-centred benefits rather than purely institutional advantages.
Trust as a foundational requirement
Trust operates as both a direct predictor of acceptance and a necessary condition for other factors to influence outcomes positively. Without baseline organisational trust, even clearly communicated benefits and robust privacy protections may fail to generate acceptance. This finding emphasises that biometric implementation cannot be isolated from broader employment relationships and organisational climate.
The multidimensional nature of trust—encompassing technological reliability, data security, employer integrity, and regulatory protection—indicates that organisations must address multiple trust domains simultaneously. Technological trust in system accuracy is insufficient if employees lack confidence in employer intentions or data protection practices.
Privacy concerns as persistent barriers
Privacy concerns remain the most significant barrier to acceptance despite technological improvements and growing familiarity with biometric applications in consumer contexts. The inherent characteristics of biometric data—personal, permanent, and irrevocable—generate concerns that cannot be fully resolved through technical or procedural safeguards.
The distinction between authentication and surveillance functions proves particularly important. Employees may accept biometric authentication for discrete access control whilst strongly resisting systems with continuous monitoring capabilities. This functional specificity suggests that organisations should implement biometric systems with minimal data collection and narrowly defined purposes to maximise acceptance.
Critical role of implementation processes
Implementation procedures substantially mediate acceptance outcomes, indicating that organisational behaviour during deployment is as consequential as the technology itself. Early communication, employee involvement, transparent purpose specification, and procedural fairness legitimise biometric systems and reduce resistance.
The evidence suggests that rushed or imposed implementations generate lasting negative attitudes that may persist even after employees become familiar with systems. Conversely, consultative approaches that acknowledge employee concerns and provide opportunities for input cultivate acceptance that strengthens over time.
Cultural contingency
Cross-cultural variations in acceptance patterns indicate that universal implementation approaches may prove suboptimal for multinational organisations. Cultural values shape interpretations of privacy, authority, and collective versus individual interests, affecting how employees perceive biometric systems and their implementation.
This cultural contingency does not preclude standardised biometric platforms but suggests that accompanying communication, justification, and procedural approaches should be adapted to cultural contexts. Local consultation and culturally-appropriate framing may prove more important than technological localisation.
Implications for theory and practice
The findings extend technology acceptance theories by demonstrating the importance of symbolic meanings, employment relationships, and implementation processes in shaping adoption outcomes for organisationally-mandated systems. Unlike voluntary consumer technologies, workplace biometrics involve power asymmetries and ongoing employment relationships that qualify standard acceptance models.
For practice, the research provides clear guidance: organisations should implement biometric systems with transparent purposes, robust privacy protections, employee consultation, and clear communication of individual benefits. Trust-building should precede implementation, and ongoing governance should demonstrate commitment to stated principles. These practices substantially improve acceptance whilst reducing legal, reputational, and operational risks associated with employee resistance.
Conclusions
This dissertation has achieved its aim of investigating employee acceptance of workplace biometric access systems and identifying factors shaping perceived legitimacy. The systematic literature synthesis addressed each objective through comprehensive analysis of existing research.
Regarding acceptance levels, the evidence demonstrates moderate to high employee willingness to use workplace biometrics when appropriate conditions are satisfied, with acceptance being conditional upon perceived benefits, trust, and privacy protection rather than automatic or inevitable. The research identified and categorised primary influential factors, with perceived usefulness strongly promoting acceptance whilst privacy concerns, surveillance anxieties, and organisational distrust generate resistance.
Trust emerges as a foundational requirement operating at organisational, technological, and regulatory levels, whilst organisational culture, communication practices, and fair implementation procedures prove critical for legitimising systems and easing adoption. Cross-cultural variations indicate that implementation approaches require cultural sensitivity, though underlying factors remain relatively consistent across contexts.
The significance of these findings extends to multiple stakeholder groups. Organisations gain evidence-based guidance for biometric implementation strategies that maximise acceptance whilst minimising resistance and associated risks. Technology developers receive insight into user concerns that should inform system design, particularly regarding privacy-preserving architectures and transparency features. Policymakers obtain evidence supporting regulatory requirements for consultation, transparency, and data protection in workplace biometric contexts.
Future research should examine longitudinal acceptance trajectories, tracking how initial attitudes evolve with system experience. The emergence of novel biometric modalities, including emotional recognition and continuous authentication, warrants investigation of acceptance patterns for these more intrusive applications. Additionally, the interaction between organisational biometric practices and broader public attitudes towards surveillance technologies merits exploration as biometrics become ubiquitous across institutional contexts.
In conclusion, workplace biometrics can achieve employee acceptance and perceived legitimacy, but only when organisations recognise that acceptance requires cultivation through trust-building, transparent communication, privacy protection, and fair implementation processes. The conditional nature of acceptance should inform organisational strategy, positioning biometric implementation as a sociotechnical challenge requiring attention to human factors alongside technical performance.
References
Al-Dalaein, A. and Kasim, T. (2025) ‘The Role of Organizational and Technological Factors on the User Acceptance of BaaS in the Telecommunication Companies in Jordan: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Trust in BaaS’, *2025 1st International Conference on Computational Intelligence Approaches and Applications (ICCIAA)*, pp. 01–08. https://doi.org/10.1109/icciaa65327.2025.11013750
Alhussain, T. and Drew, S. (2009) ‘Towards User Acceptance of Biometric Technology in E-Government: A Survey Study in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’, pp. 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04280-5_3
Al-Shamsi, I. (2024) ‘Evaluating Arab generation Z’s acceptance of biometric attendance control technology in educational systems’, *Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development*, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i9.7491
Carpenter, D., Maasberg, M., Hicks, C. and Chen, X. (2016) ‘A multicultural study of biometric privacy concerns in a fire ground accountability crisis response system’, *International Journal of Information Management*, 36, pp. 735–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.02.013
Carpenter, D., McLeod, A., Hicks, C. and Maasberg, M. (2016) ‘Privacy and biometrics: An empirical examination of employee concerns’, *Information Systems Frontiers*, 20, pp. 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9667-5
Davis, F.D. (1989) ‘Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology’, *MIS Quarterly*, 13(3), pp. 319–340.
Deane, F., Barrelle, K., Henderson, R. and Mahar, D. (1995) ‘Refereed paper: Perceived acceptability of biometric security systems’, *Computers & Security*, 14, pp. 225–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-4048(95)00005-s
Gupta, B., Dasgupta, S. and Purushothaman, M. (2025) ‘Espoused Cultural Values and Acceptance of Biometrics-Based Identity Authentication Systems: A Mixed Methods Study’, *Information Systems Management*, 42, pp. 546–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2025.2479738
Hamapa, A., Zulu, J., Khondowe, O. and Hangulu, L. (2024) ‘Healthcare workers’ perceptions and user experiences of biometric technology in the selected healthcare facilities in Zambia’, *Discover Public Health*, 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-024-00167-0
Jain, A., Deb, D. and Engelsma, J. (2021) ‘Biometrics: Trust, But Verify’, *IEEE Transactions on Biometrics, Behavior, and Identity Science*, 4, pp. 303–323. https://doi.org/10.1109/tbiom.2021.3115465
Ko, C. (2014) ‘Exploring employees perceptions of biometric technology adoption in hotels’, *BioTechnology: An Indian Journal*, 10.
Norris-Jones, L. (2012) ‘Biometric access control in the workplace: benefit or bind?’, *International Journal of Information Technology and Management*, 11, pp. 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijitm.2012.044064
Roxburgh, P. (2011) *Biometrics and its introduction into the workplace*. [Unpublished thesis or report].
Rukhiran, M., Wong-In, S. and Netinant, P. (2023) ‘User Acceptance Factors Related to Biometric Recognition Technologies of Examination Attendance in Higher Education: TAM Model’, *Sustainability*, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043092
Sipulova, M., Taborecka, J. and Valova, H. (2025) ‘Exploring Perceptions and Utilization of Biometric Technologies from Consumer Perspective’, *International Review of Management and Marketing*. https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.18817
Torraco, R.J. (2005) ‘Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples’, *Human Resource Development Review*, 4(3), pp. 356–367.
Weerakkody, N. (2006) ‘A comparative analysis of opinions of Americans, Australians and Malaysians on the use of biometric devices in workplaces for security and monitoring of worker productivity’, *The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management*, 5, pp. 43–52. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9524/cgp/v05i06/49254
Zhang, W., Zhang, H. and Deng, Z. (2025) ‘Public attitude and media governance of biometric information dissemination in the era of digital intelligence’, *Scientific Reports*, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-86603-w
