The impact of ICT, green finance, and CSR on sustainable financial performance: moderating role of perceived organizational support

Figures & data

Table 1. Measurement scale for financial performance.

Items	Statements	Sources
FP1	‘Our firm achieves better return on sales than competitors’.	(Nor Rifhan, 2017)
FP2	‘Our firm has achieved a better return on investment than competitors for the last three years’.
FP3	‘Our firm achieves better assets growth than competitors’.
FP4	‘Our firm has achieved better revenue growth than competitors for the last three years’.
FP5	‘Our firm achieves better net profit growth than competitors’.

Source: Author's source.

Table 2. Measurement scale for ICT.

Items	Statements	Sources
ICT1	‘Our firm achieves required performance using ICTs.	(Ul-Hameed et al., 2019)
ICT2	‘Our organization provides facilities to the employees to understand the ICTs’.
ICT3	‘Our firm is willing to adopt ICTs in the business’.
ICT4	‘Our organization invests extensively in the implementation of ICTs’.
ICT5	‘Our firm also recommends other business units to adopt ICTs’.

Source: Author's source.

Table 3. Measurement scale for green finance.

Items	Statements	Sources
GF1	‘Improvement of investment in waste management.	(Zheng et al., 2021)
GF2	‘Enhancement of green establishment investment’.
GF3	‘More investment in green brick manufacturing’.
GF4	‘Promotion of investment in recycling and recyclable product’.
GF5	‘More investment in environmentally friendly projects’.
GF6	‘Always focus on green environment activities’.

Source: Author's source.

Table 4. Measurement scale for CSR.

Items	Statements	Sources
CSR1	‘My firm encourages subordinates who acquire additional education’.	(Manzoor et al., 2019)
CSR2	‘My firm has flexible policies that enable employees to better balance work and personal life’.
CSR3	‘My firm provides important job training to the workers’.
CSR4	‘My firm provides an excellent working environment for workers’.
CSR5	‘The managerial staff of my firm complies with the law’.
CSR6	‘My firm follows job recruitment and work laws to prevent workplace discrimination’.
CSR7	‘My firm fulfills the terms of work agreements assigned in mutual contracts’.
CSR8	‘My firm seeks to fulfill the law that regulates its activities’.
CSR9	‘My firm has adopted a comprehensive ethical code of conduct’.
CSR10	‘My firm has a proper employee evaluation system, which emphasizes fairness toward co-workers and business partners’.
CSR11	‘My firm provides accurate information to its business partners’.
CSR12	‘My firm is recognized as an organization with good business ethics’.
CSR13	‘My firm gives adequate contributions to charities’.
CSR14	‘My firm sponsors activities with the partnership of local institutions and schools’.
CSR15	‘My firm emphasizes the activities relevant to nature and environmental protection’.
CSR16	‘My firm gives importance to activities which are particularly important for the public well-being of society’.

Source: Author's source.

Table 5. Measurement scale for perceived organizational support.

Items	Statements	Sources
POS1	‘The institution values my contribution to its well-being’.	(Iqbal & Hashmi, 2015)
POS2	‘My institution fails to appreciate any extra effort from me’.
POS3	‘The institution would ignore any complaint from me’.
POS4	‘The institution cares about my well-being’.
POS5	‘Even if I did the best job possible, the institution would fail to notice’.
POS6	‘The institution cares about my general satisfaction at work’.
POS7	‘The institution shows very little concern for me’.
POS8	‘The institution takes pride in my accomplishments at work’.

Source: Author's source.

Table 6. Demographic information of respondents.

Gender
Male	Female		Total
189	101		290
Qualification
Graduation	Master	PhD	Total
55	179	56	290
Experience
1 to 5 years	6 to 10 years	10 years or above	Total
77	186	27	290
Nature of Employment
Subordinate	Manager	Other	Total
65	117	108	290

Source: Author's source.

Figure 1. Theoretical Model.

Source: Author's source.

Table 7. Convergent validity.

Constructs	Items	Loadings	Alpha	CR	AVE
Corporate social responsibilities	CSR1	0.817	0.962	0.966	0.638
	CSR10	0.810
	CSR11	0.802
	CSR12	0.724
	CSR13	0.805
	CSR14	0.773
	CSR15	0.843
	CSR16	0.812
	CSR2	0.802
	CSR3	0.776
	CSR4	0.826
	CSR5	0.809
	CSR6	0.806
	CSR7	0.800
	CSR8	0.725
	CSR9	0.838
Financial performance	FP1	0.765	0.901	0.927	0.718
	FP2	0.881
	FP3	0.845
	FP4	0.877
	FP5	0.863
Green finance	GF1	0.930	0.944	0.958	0.819
	GF3	0.867
	GF4	0.927
	GF5	0.931
	GF6	0.866
Information communication technology	ICT1	0.935	0.962	0.971	0.869
	ICT2	0.937
	ICT3	0.942
	ICT4	0.914
	ICT5	0.931
Perceived organizational support	POS1	0.824	0.930	0.943	0.677
	POS2	0.600
	POS3	0.858
	POS4	0.855
	POS5	0.821
	POS6	0.869
	POS7	0.862
	POS8	0.859

Source: Author's source.

Table 8. Fornell &Larcker.

	CSR	FP	GF	ICT	POS
CSR	0.799
FP	0.469	0.847
GF	0.579	0.462	0.905
ICT	0.490	0.395	0.503	0.932
POS	0.458	0.393	0.409	0.424	0.823

Source: Author's source.

Table 9. Cross-loadings.

	CSR	FP	GF	ICT	POS
CSR1	0.817	0.405	0.794	0.426	0.383
CSR10	0.810	0.295	0.662	0.327	0.358
CSR11	0.802	0.404	0.727	0.456	0.372
CSR12	0.724	0.289	0.537	0.315	0.346
CSR13	0.805	0.367	0.679	0.391	0.356
CSR14	0.773	0.368	0.662	0.389	0.349
CSR15	0.843	0.359	0.686	0.355	0.395
CSR16	0.812	0.301	0.663	0.325	0.353
CSR2	0.802	0.372	0.672	0.395	0.362
CSR3	0.776	0.363	0.661	0.383	0.350
CSR4	0.826	0.423	0.747	0.404	0.377
CSR5	0.809	0.443	0.798	0.453	0.349
CSR6	0.806	0.439	0.856	0.436	0.380
CSR7	0.800	0.410	0.732	0.450	0.367
CSR8	0.725	0.302	0.542	0.316	0.350
CSR9	0.838	0.356	0.687	0.354	0.397
FP1	0.438	0.765	0.390	0.400	0.338
FP2	0.377	0.881	0.405	0.304	0.311
FP3	0.378	0.845	0.365	0.321	0.343
FP4	0.413	0.877	0.408	0.330	0.347
FP5	0.368	0.863	0.383	0.305	0.317
GF1	0.785	0.402	0.930	0.459	0.351
GF3	0.807	0.439	0.867	0.443	0.394
GF4	0.776	0.407	0.927	0.462	0.353
GF5	0.792	0.399	0.931	0.462	0.353
GF6	0.806	0.436	0.866	0.444	0.393
ICT1	0.463	0.353	0.454	0.935	0.423
ICT2	0.462	0.358	0.475	0.937	0.389
ICT3	0.457	0.380	0.467	0.942	0.410
ICT4	0.444	0.390	0.473	0.914	0.368
ICT5	0.458	0.356	0.471	0.931	0.386
POS1	0.329	0.317	0.301	0.352	0.824
POS2	0.264	0.252	0.258	0.186	0.600
POS3	0.400	0.340	0.349	0.357	0.858
POS4	0.372	0.323	0.314	0.347	0.855
POS5	0.405	0.297	0.361	0.378	0.821
POS6	0.396	0.303	0.348	0.368	0.869
POS7	0.416	0.338	0.366	0.375	0.862
POS8	0.408	0.389	0.380	0.393	0.859

Note: The bold values indicate the results for corresponding statistics for whole variable not the items.

Source: Author's source.

Figure 2. Measurement model assessment.

Source: Author's source.

Table 10. Discriminant validity.

	CSR	FP	GF	ICT	POS
CSR
FP	0.493
GF	0.509	0.498
ICT	0.502	0.421	0.526
POS	0.482	0.426	0.434	0.445

Source: Author's source.

Figure 3. Structural model assessment.

Source: Author's source.

Table 11. Path analysis.

Relationships	Beta	Standard Deviation	T Statistics	P Values	Lower Limits	Upper Limits
CSR -> FP	0.214	0.112	1.911	0.029	0.015	0.383
CSR*POS -> FP	0.126	0.057	2.226	0.014	0.019	0.204
GF -> FP	0.158	0.091	1.746	0.042	0.012	0.312
ICT -> FP	0.155	0.072	2.163	0.016	0.040	0.260
ICT*POS -> FP	0.125	0.066	1.898	0.030	0.005	0.212
POS -> FP	0.238	0.065	3.687	0.000	0.132	0.345

Source: Author's source.

Figure 4. CSR*POS.

Source: Author's source.

Figure 5. ICT*POS.

Source: Author's source.

Nor Rifhan, H. (2017). The effect of lean manufacturing towards financial performance at Hicom Automotive Manufacturers, Pekan, Pahang. Universiti Utara Malaysia.

 Google Scholar

Ul-Hameed, W., Shabbir, M., Imran, M., Raza, A., & Salman, R. (2019). Remedies of low performance among Pakistani e-logistic companies: The role of firm’s IT capability and information communication technology (ICT). Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 7(2), 369–380.

 Google Scholar

Zheng, G.-W., Siddik, A. B., Masukujjaman, M., Fatema, N., & Alam, S. S. (2021). Green finance development in Bangladesh: The role of private commercial banks (PCBs). Sustainability, 13(2), 1–17.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Manzoor, F., Wei, L., Nurunnabi, M., Subhan, Q. A., Shah, S. I. A., & Fallatah, S. (2019). The impact of transformational leadership on job performance and CSR as mediator in SMEs. Sustainability, 11(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020436

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Iqbal, S., & Hashmi, M. S. (2015). Impact of perceived organizational support on employee retention with mediating role of psychological empowerment. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 9(1), 18–34.

 Google Scholar