The mediating effects of sustainable growth rate: evidence from the perspective of Shariah-compliant companies

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample of studies on the sustainable growth rate

No.	Author/s	Country/method	Research focus	Summary of the findings
1.	Arora, Kumar, Verma et al. (2018a)	Indian 1998 to 2014 203 NSE-listed firms Manufacturing sector Panel data regression Descriptive statistics Bivariate and Multivariate Regression analysis	Investigate the impact of the determinants of sustainable growth rate	The results suggest that four key ratios (decomposing return on equity into net profit margin, asset turnover and financial leverage) are robust in capturing the variations in sustainable growth rate even after introducing industry-specific factors (such as industrial growth and inflation) and found that net profit margin drives sustainable growth of firms.
2.	Vasiu and Ilie (2018)	Factorial analysis 5 companies 2012 to 2016	Determine if the last year most traded companies on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BSE) have registered growth and if it was a sustainable	The results found that the analyzed companies have a constant growth and the growth is sustainable and the main factor that is influencing SGR is the retention rate.
3.	Huang et al. (2019)	China 2003 to 2017 20089 observations Descriptive statistics Cross-sectional regression	Investigate the relationship between trade credit financing and firm-level sustainable growth	The results found that trade credit has an overall positive and significant impact on the sustainable growth of firms, especially for firms with higher internal control ability, trade credit financing contributes more to sustainable growth.
4.	Mamilla (2019)	India 5 companies 2007 to 2017 Simple random sampling technique Correlation Linear regression	Analyze the actual growth rate as well as SGR and investigate the overall effect of selected independent variables on SGR	The results found that firm’s size and debt-equity ratio has significant negative relationship with SGR.
5.	Wang et al. (2019)	China 2011 to 2015 3514 firm-year observations SMEs listed in the China stock market Descriptive statistics Regression	The study examine the relationship between internal control and sustainable growth, and assesses a moderating role of multiple large shareholders	The results show that effective internal control (1 if the firm discloses effective internal control with no weaknesses and zero otherwise) significantly promotes SMEs to achieve sustainable growth, and the effect is moderated by multiple large shareholders.
6.	Lim and Rokhim (2021)	Indonesia 2014 to 2018 Pooled OLS regression	The study examine the factors affecting profitability of pharmaceutical company	The finding shows strong and positive relationship between liquidity and sustainable growth rate with profitability as measured by return on equity, return on assets and earning per share, except earnings per share for liquidity.
7.	Pham et al. (2021)	Sweden 116 companies 2019 Descriptive statistics Correlation analysis Hypothesis testing Multiple regression analysis	Exploring the influence of sustainability practices on the financial performance.	The results found that a positive relationship between corporate sustainability and financial performance (earnings yield, return on asset, return on equity and return on capital employed).

Figure 1. Research framework.

Table 2. Hypotheses and step by step of analysis

Step	Hypotheses	Details	Analysis
Step 1	Hypothesis 1	Firm specific factors and SPP (H1a—H1e).	Firm specific factors have a significant relationship with SPP.
Step 2	Hypothesis 2	Firm specific factors and SGR (H2a—H2e).	Firm specific factors have a significant relationship with SGR.
Step 3	Hypothesis 3	SGR and SPP (H3).	SGR of firm has a significant relationship with SPP.
Step 4	Hypothesis 4	Mediating effects (H4a-H4e).	SGR has an mediating effect on the relationship between firm specific factors and SPP.

Table 3. No. of final observations by using cook’s distance test

Type	No. of observation
No. of companies	181
No. of observations	1810
No. of final observations (removing outliers based on cook’s distance test)	1731

Table 4. Variables used in the measure of firm specific factors, SGR and SPP

Variable	Symbol	Measurement
Capital Structure	TDTE	Total debt/Total equity
Dividend Policy	DPR	Dividend per share/Earnings per share
Profitability	NPM	Net income/Sales
Company Efficiency	STA	Sales /Total assets
Firm’s size	Log TA	Logarithm of total assets
Sustainable Growth Rate	SGR	Return on equity × Retention ratio
Share price performance	SPP	Initial stock price minus ending stock price and divided by ending stock price

Table 5. Descriptive statistics

Variable	Mean	Minimum	Maximum	Standard deviation
Capital structure	0.3727	−3.0576	12.9581	0.5795
Dividend policy	0.3166	−7.7389	14.5349	0.6593
Profitability	0.0808	−2.0249	2.7807	0.2006
Company’s efficiency	2.2922	0.0143	4.7004	0.5073
Firm size	20.3126	17.4224	25.6129	1.2946
Sustainable growth rate	0.0481	−1.2493	0.5479	0.0879
Share price performance	0.0863	−1.1654	1.9189	0.3935

Table 6. Panel unit root tests

Variable	Result
Capital Structure	1006.1538 (0.0000)
Dividend policy	1516.7811 (0.0000)
Profitability	851.4333 (0.0000)
Company efficiency	733.6917 (0.0000)
Firm size	519.4135 (0.0000)
SPP	1137.3662 (0.0000)
SGR	2557.9258 (0.0000)

Table 7. Panel unit root tests

Index	Goodness of Fit	Cut Off Value	Result
Chi-Square Probability	0.000 .	≥ 0.05	The model is saturated and perfectly fit the data.
RMSEA	0.000	≤ 0.08	A value of 0.0 indicates the exact fit of the model.
CFI (comparative fit index)	1.000	≥ 0.90	A value close to 1 indicates a very good fit.
TLI (Tucker–Lewis index)	1.000	≥ 0.95	A value close to 1 indicates a very good fit.
SRMR (standardized root mean squared residual)	0.000	≤ 0.08	Good fit or well below the cutoff of 0.08.

Table 8. Statistically significant value estimates for firm specific factors and SPP

Model	Result
Panel A	Coef. (β)	Std. error	C.R.
Capital structure → SGR	−0.0352	0.0114	−3.08***
Dividend policy → SGR	−0.0147	0.0056	−2.61***
Profitability →SGR	0.2079	0.0317	6.57***
Company’s efficiency →SGR	−0.0025	0.0015	−1.59
Firm’s size →SGR	0.0074	0.0019	3.97***
Panel B	Coef. (β)	Std. error	C.R.
Capital structure →SPP	−0.0142	0.0221	−0.64
Dividend policy → SPP	0.0135	0.0095	1.42
Profitability →SPP	0.1073	0.0678	1.58
Company’s efficiency →SPP	0.0022	0.0034	0.63
Firm’s size → SPP	−0.0049	0.0070	−0.70
SGR →SPP	0.8069	0.1490	5.42***
R-squared (R^2): SGR	0.2933
R-squared (R^2): SPP	0.0416
Overall	0.2956

Notes: ***, **, and * denote significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The SEM was performed using Stata software measures the Beta (β) coefficient, standard error and statistically significant values using resampling from the bootstrapping procedures for a number of samples of 5000 for all sample.

Table 9. The direct relationship between firm specific factors and SPP

Hypothesis	Description	Result
H1a	Capital structure to SPP	Not significant (-)
H1b	Dividend policy to SPP	Not significant (+)
H1c	Profitability to SPP	Not significant (+)
H1d	Company’s efficiency to SPP	Not significant (+)
H1e	Firm’s size to SPP	Not significant (-)

Table 10. The direct relationship between firm specific factors and SGR

Hypothesis	Description	Result
H2a	Capital structure to SGR	Significant (-)
H2b	Dividend policy to SGR	Significant (-)
H2c	Profitability to SGR	Significant (+)
H2d	Company’s efficiency to SGR	Not significant (-)
H2e	Firm size to SGR	Significant (+)

Table 11. The direct relationship between SGR and SPP

Hypothesis	Description	Result
H3	SGR to SPP	Significant (+)

Figure 2. Mediation effect.

Figure 3. Mediation effect on this research.

Table 12. SGR play as mediator between the firm specific factors and SPP

Mediating effects analysis	Bootstrapping			Sobel Test	Result
	Coef.	Std. error	Critical ratio
Capital structure → SGR → SPP	−0.0284	0.0097	−2.93***	−2.6823***	Significant (-)
Dividend policy → SGR → SPP	−0.0118	0.0048	−2.45**	−2.3302**	Significant (-)
Profitability → SGR → SPP	0.1678	0.0380	4.41***	4.1758***	Significant (+)
Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP	−0.0020	0.0013	−1.55	−1.5929	Not significant (-)
Firm size → SGR → SPP	0.0060	0.0017	3.43***	3.1619***	Significant (+)

Notes: ***, **, and * denote significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The SEM was performed using Stata software measures the Beta (β) coefficient, standard error and statistically significant values using resampling from the bootstrapping procedures for a number of samples of 5000 for all sample.

Table 13. A typology of mediations

Types of mediation	Description
Complementary mediation	The indirect effect (path: a × b) and direct effect (path c) both significant and the signs pointing in the same direction.
Competitive mediation	The indirect effect (path: a × b) and direct effect (path c) both significant and the signs pointing in the opposite direction.
Indirect-only mediation	The indirect effect (path: a × b) significant, but direct effect (path c) is not significant.
Direct-only non-mediation	The indirect effect (path: a × b) is not significant, but direct effect (path c) is significant.
No-effect non-mediation	Neither the indirect nor the direct effect is significant.

Source: Zhao et al. (2010), Ramli (2014), and (2018)

Table 14. Summary results of mediation effect with the typology of mediation

Paths	Description	Result	Decision
a	H2a: Capital structure → SGR	Significant (-)	Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP	Significant (+)
c	H1a: Capital structure → SPP	Not significant (-)
c’	H4a: Capital structure → SGR → SPP	Significant (-)
a	H2b: Dividend policy → SGR	Significant (-)	Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP	Significant (+)
c	H1b: Dividend policy → SPP	Not significant (+)
c’	H4b: Dividend policy → SGR → SPP	Significant (-)
a	H2c: Profitability → SGR	Significant (+)	Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP	Significant (+)
c	H1c: Profitability → SPP	Not significant (+)
c’	H4c: Profitability → SGR → SPP	Significant (+)
a	H2d: Company’s efficiency → SGR	Not significant (-)	No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP	Significant (+)
c	H1d: Company’s efficiency → SPP	Not significant (+)
c’	H4d: Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP	Not significant (-)
a	H2e: Firm size → SGR	Significant (+)	Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP	Significant (+)
c	H1e: Firm size → SPP	Not significant (-)
c’	H4e: Firm size → SGR → SPP	Significant (+)

Table 15. Statistically significant value estimates of the firm specific factors, SGR and SPP by each industry

Model 1	Consumer Product			Industrial Product			Construction
Panel A (a)	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.
Capital structure→ SGR	−0.0135	0.0160	−0.85	−0.0497	0.0231	−2.15**	−0.0583	0.0313	−1.86*
Dividend policy → SGR	−0.0268	0.0228	−1.17	−0.0070	0.0060	−1.16	−0.0526	0.0234	−2.24**
Profitability → SGR	0.3142	0.0628	5.00***	0.2134	0.0966	2.21**	0.4756	0.1739	2.73***
Assets efficiency → SGR	−0.0040	0.0042	−0.95	−0.0057	0.0032	−1.80*	0.0015	0.0077	0.20
Firm size → SGR	0.0093	0.0047	2.00**	0.0015	0.0047	0.33	−0.0007	0.0073	−0.09
Panel B (c)
Capital structure → SPP	−0.0881	0.0833	−1.06	0.0014	0.0591	0.02	−0.0552	0.0548	−1.01
Dividend policy → SPP	0.0049	0.0456	0.11	0.0081	0.0142	0.57	0.0620	0.1083	0.57
Profitability → SPP	−0.1390	0.2881	−0.48	−0.0226	0.1190	−0.19	0.6955	0.3319	2.10**
Assets efficiency → SPP	−0.0222	0.0274	−0.81	−0.0009	0.0084	−0.10	−0.0030	0.0150	−0.20
Firm size → SPP	−0.0023	0.0251	−0.09	−0.0073	0.0168	−0.43	0.0125	0.0298	0.42
SGR → SPP (b)	1.2336	0.3904	3.16***	1.0578	0.3180	3.33***	0.1145	0.2970	0.39
R-squared (R2): SGR	0.3387			0.4187			0.2770
R-squared (R2): SPP	0.0528			0.0463			0.0507
Overall	0.3449			0.4191			0.3036
Model	Trading and services			Properties			Plantation
Panel A (a)	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.
Capital structure→ SGR	−0.0121	0.0166	−0.73	0.0311	0.0140	2.21**	−0.0051	0.0165	−0.31
Dividend policy → SGR	−0.0218	0.0156	−1.40	−0.0080	0.0057	−1.41	−0.0211	0.0149	−1.41
Profitability → SGR	0.2512	0.0838	3.00***	0.2978	0.0409	7.28***	0.0977	0.0524	1.86*
Assets efficiency → SGR	−0.0069	0.0045	−1.54	0.0008	0.0015	0.55	−0.0019	0.0030	−0.63
Firm size → SGR	0.0100	0.0025	3.94***	0.0096	0.0035	2.74***	0.0019	0.0049	0.40
Panel B (c)
Capital structure → SPP	−0.0117	0.0348	−0.34	0.1713	0.1681	1.02	0.0199	0.0738	0.27
Dividend policy → SPP	0.0010	0.0262	0.04	0.0554	0.0980	0.57	0.0198	0.0340	0.58
Profitability → SPP	0.2669	0.1889	1.41	−0.0233	0.3238	−0.07	0.0859	0.1463	0.59
Assets efficiency → SPP	−0.0181	0.0094	−1.92*	0.0089	0.0086	1.04	0.0033	0.0076	0.43
Firm size → SPP	−0.0181	0.0114	0.75	−0.0732	0.0408	−1.79*	−0.0432	0.0295	−1.47
SGR → SPP(b)	0.5503	0.3377	1.63	1.6345	0.7324	2.23**	1.1461	0.6074	1.89*
R-squared (R2): SGR	0.2920			0.6276			0.2416
R-squared (R2): SPP	0.0693			0.0603			0.0746
Overall	0.3096			0.6360			0.2599

Notes: ***, **, and * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The table shows the SEM was performed using Stata software measures the Beta (β) coefficient, standard error and statistically significant values using resampling from the bootstrapping procedures for 5000 samples for all samples.

Table 16. SGR as mediator between the firm specific factors and SPP by each sector

Industry	Consumer Product					Industrial Product
Mediating effects analysis (c’)	Bootstrapping			Sobel Test		Bootstrapping			Sobel Test
	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Std. error	C.R.	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Std. error	C.R.
Capital structure → SGR → SPP	−0.0167	0.0201	−0.83	0.0204	−0.82	−0.0525	0.0251	−2.09**	0.0291	−1.81**
Dividend policy → SGR → SPP	−0.0330	0.0282	−1.17	0.0300	−1.10	−0.0074	0.0064	−1.14	0.0067	−1.10
Profitability → SGR → SPP	0.3876	0.1472	2.63***	0.1451	2.67***	0.2257	0.1133	1.99**	0.1227	1.84*
Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP	−0.0049	0.0056	−0.88	0.0054	−0.91	−0.0061	0.0035	−1.71*	0.0038	−1.57
Firm size → SGR → SPP	0.0115	0.0066	1.75*	0.0068	1.68*	0.0016	0.0050	0.33	0.0050	0.32
Industry	Construction					Trading and services
Mediating effects analysis(c’)	Bootstrapping			Sobel Test		Bootstrapping			Sobel Test
	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Std. error	C.R.	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Std. error	C.R.
Capital structure → SGR → SPP	−0.0066	0.0175	−0.38	0.0177	−0.38	−0.0066	0.0108	−0.61	0.0100	−0.67
Dividend policy → SGR → SPP	−0.0060	0.0154	−0.39	0.0159	−0.38	−0.0120	0.0105	−1.15	0.0113	−1.06
Profitability → SGR → SPP	0.0545	0.1415	0.38	0.1426	0.38	0.1383	0.0896	1.54	0.0966	1.43
Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP	0.0002	0.0011	0.16	0.0010	0.17	−0.0038	0.0032	−1.19	0.0034	−1.12
Firm size → SGR → SPP	−0.0001	0.0009	−0.09	0.0009	−0.09	0.0055	0.0036	1.51	0.0036	1.51
Industry	Properties					Plantation
Mediating effects analysis(c’)	Bootstrapping			Sobel Test		Bootstrapping			Sobel Test
	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Std. error	C.R.	Coef.	Std. error	C.R.	Std. error	C.R.
Capital structure → SGR → SPP	0.0508	0.0315	1.61	0.0323	1.57	−0.0059	0.0192	−0.31	0.0192	−0.31
Dividend policy → SGR → SPP	−0.0131	0.0115	−1.14	0.0110	−1.19	−0.0242	0.0221	−1.09	0.0214	−1.13
Profitability → SGR → SPP	0.4867	0.2312	2.10**	0.2281	2.13**	0.1120	0.0845	1.32	0.0844	1.33
Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP	0.0013	0.0025	0.52	0.0025	0.52	−0.0022	0.0036	−0.61	0.0036	−0.60
Firm size → SGR → SPP	0.0157	0.0089	1.78*	0.0091	1.73*	0.0022	0.0057	0.39	0.0057	0.38

Notes: ***, **, and * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively. The SEM was performed using Stata software to measure the Beta (β) coefficient, standard error and statistically significant values using resampling from the bootstrapping procedures for 5000 samples for all samples.

Table 17. Summary results of mediation effect with the typology of mediation for consumer products

Paths	Description		Result				Decision
Paths	Description		Result		Decision
Paths	Description	Result				Decision
Paths	Description	Result						Decision
a	H2.2a: Capital structure → SGR			Not significant (-)			No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1a: Capital structure → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4a: Capital structure → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2b: Dividend policy → SGR			Not significant (-)			No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1b: Dividend policy → SPP			Not significant (+)
c’	H2.4b: Dividend policy → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2c: Profitability → SGR			Significant (+)			Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1c: Profitability → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4c: Profitability → SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
a	H2.2d: Company’s efficiency → SGR			Not significant (-)			No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1d: Company’s efficiency → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4d: Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2e: Firm size → SGR			Significant (+)			Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1e: Firm size → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4e: Firm size → SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
a	H2.2a: Capital structure → SGR			Significant (-)	Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1a: Capital structure → SPP			Not significant (+)
c’	H2.4a: Capital structure → SGR → SPP			Significant (-)
a	H2.2b: Dividend policy → SGR			Not significant (-)	No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1b: Dividend policy → SPP			Not significant (+)
c’	H2.4b: Dividend policy → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2c: Profitability → SGR			Significant (+)	Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1c: Profitability → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4c: Profitability → SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
a	H2.2d: Company’s efficiency → SGR			Significant (-)	No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1d: Company’s efficiency → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4d: Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2e: Firm size → SGR			Not significant (+)	No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1e: Firm size → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4e: Firm size → SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
a	H2.2a: Capital structure → SGR			Significant (-)		No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
c	H2.1a: Capital structure → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4a: Capital structure → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2b: Dividend policy → SGR			Significant (-)		No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
c	H2.1b: Dividend policy → SPP			Not significant (+)
c’	H2.4b: Dividend policy → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2c: Profitability → SGR			Significant (+)		Direct-only non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
c	H2.1c: Profitability → SPP			Significant (+)
c’	H2.4c: Profitability → SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
a	H2.2d: Company’s efficiency → SGR			Not significant (+)		No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
c	H2.1d: Company’s efficiency → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4d: Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
a	H2.2e: Firm size → SGR			Not significant (-)		No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
c	H2.1e: Firm size → SPP			Not significant (+)
c’	H2.4e: Firm size → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2a: Capital structure → SGR			Significant (+)				Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1a: Capital structure → SPP			Not significant (+)
c’	H2.4a: Capital structure → SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
a	H2.2b: Dividend policy → SGR			Not significant (-)				No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1b: Dividend policy → SPP			Not significant (+)
c’	H2.4b: Dividend policy → SGR → SPP			Not significant (-)
a	H2.2c: Profitability → SGR			Significant (+)				Indirect-only mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1c: Profitability → SPP			Not significant (-)
c’	H2.4c: Profitability → SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
a	H2.2d: Company’s efficiency → SGR			Not significant (+)				No-effect non-mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1d: Company’s efficiency → SPP			Not significant (+)
c’	H2.4d: Company’s efficiency → SGR → SPP			Not significant (+)
a	H2.2e: Firm size → SGR			Significant (+)				Competitive mediation
b	H3: SGR → SPP			Significant (+)
c	H2.1e: Firm size → SPP			Significant (-)
c’	H2.4e: Firm size → SGR → SPP			Significant (+)

Figure 4. Mediation analysis on the relationship between the firm specific factors, SGR, and SPP for each industry.

Arora, L., Kumar, S., & Verma, P. (2018a). The anatomy of sustainable growth rate of Indian manufacturing firms. Global Business Review, 19(4), 1050–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918773002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vasiu, D. E., & Ilie, L. (2018). Sustainable growth rate: An analysis regarding the most traded companies on the bucharest stock exchange. In: S. Mărginean, C. Ogrean, & R. Orăștean (Eds.), Emerging issues in the global economy. Springer proceedings in business and economics. (pp. 1689–1699). Springer: Cham.

 Google Scholar

Huang, L., Ying, Q., Yang, S., & Hassan, H. (2019). Trade credit financing and sustainable growth of firms: Empirical evidence from China. Sustainability, 11(4), 1032. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11041032

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mamilla, R. (2019). A study on sustainable growth rate for firm survival. Strategic Change, 28(4), 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2269

 Google Scholar

Wang, L., Dai, Y., & Ding, Y. (2019). Internal control and SMEs’ sustainable growth: The moderating role of multiple large shareholders. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 12(4), 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12040182

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lim, H., & Rokhim, R. (2021). Factors affecting profitability of pharmaceutical company: An Indonesian evidence. Journal of Economic Studies, 48(5), 981–995. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-01–2020-0021

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pham, D. C., Do, T. N. A., Doan, T. N., Nguyen, T. X. H., Pham, T. K. Y., & Tan, A. W. K. (2021). The impact of sustainability practices on financial performance: Empirical evidence from Sweden. Cogent Business & Management, 8(1), 1912526. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1912526

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ramli, N. A. (2014). Three essays on capital structure determinants [ Doctoral dissertation]. https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/handle/10182/6395.

 Google Scholar

Ramli, N. A., Latan, H., & Nartea, G. V. (2018). Why should PLS-SEM be used ratherthan regression? Evidence from the capital structure perspective. In N.Avkiran & C. Ringle (Eds.), Partial least squares structural equation modeling (pp. 171–209). Springer International.

 Google Scholar