# Impact of Financial Support on Textile Enterprises’ Development

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

- -
- conducting business-diagnostics of the development level of the studied enterprises and determining the integrated indicators of capital structure, current financing and financial efficiency;
- -
- formation of a financial security reference model;
- -
- determination of an integrated indicator of financial support for the studied textile enterprise’s development and separation of this indicator for a group of companies;
- -
- determination of the deviation from the standard according to the integrated indicator of financial support for the textile enterprise’s development;
- -
- formation of regression development models of the studied companies taking into consideration separate integral indicators of financial maintenance.

## 2. Materials and Methods

- -
- capital structure: the autonomy ratio (${r}_{aut}$), the ratio of borrowed and own funds (${r}_{bof}$), the ratio of long-term financial independence (${r}_{lfi}$), the short-term debt ratio (${r}_{stb}$);
- -
- current financing: the ratio of own circulating capital (${r}_{occ}$), the quick liquidity ratio (${r}_{ql}$), the ratio of own capital flexibility (${r}_{ocf}$), the ratio of receivables and payables (${r}_{rp}$);
- -
- financial efficiency: the financial stability ratio (${r}_{fs}$), the business insurance ratio (${r}_{bi}$), return on equity ($ROE$), return on capital ($ROC$).

- (a)
- for stimulators:

- (b)
- for destimulators:

_{i}—the weight of the i-th development indicator;

_{i}—is the average value of the i-th development indicator determined by using the geometric mean, i.e., by the following formula:

- (1)
- problem statement;
- (2)
- selection of the most significant factors for analysis;
- (3)
- establishing the relationship between the studied features and its density;
- (4)
- determining the nature of the relationship, its direction and form, the selection of a mathematical equation to express existing relations;
- (5)
- calculation of numerical model characteristics;
- (6)
- statistical assessment of the significance of sample communication indicators.

- There is a linear relation between the resulting variable $y$ and the factor variable $x$ which is described by regression equations:$${y}_{i}={\beta}_{0}+{\beta}_{1}x+{\epsilon}_{i}\text{}\mathrm{or}\tilde{{y}_{i}}={b}_{0}+{b}_{1}{x}_{i}$$
- The factor variable x is a deterministic (non-random) quantity.
- The mathematical expectation (mean) of a random vector $\epsilon $ is equal to zero and the variance is small constant positive value that is independent of the index, i.e.,:$$E{\epsilon}_{i}=0,D{\epsilon}_{i}=E\left({\epsilon}_{i}^{2}\right)={\sigma}^{2}.$$
- The vector components are uncorrelated random variables, i.e., $cov({\epsilon}_{i,}{\epsilon}_{j})=0$ for each $i\ne j,\left(i,j=1,2,\dots ,n\right)$.
- It is often assumed that a random variable $\epsilon $ has a normal distribution law with zero mathematical expectation and a constant positive small variance $\epsilon ~N\left(0,{\sigma}^{2}\right).$

^{2}:

**Hypothesis**

**1**

**(H1).**

**Hypothesis**

**2**

**(H2).**

**Hypothesis**

**3**

**(H3).**

**Hypothesis**

**4**

**(H4).**

## 3. Results

_{0}–an integral indicator of the textile enterprises development (IDI); x

_{1}—integrated indicator of financial security (IFS); x

_{2}—a separate integrated indicator of financial security–capital structure (ICS); x

_{3}—a separate integrated indicator of financial security–current financing (ICF); x

_{4}—a separate integrated indicator of financial security–financial efficiency (IFE). The simulation results and their econometric interpretation are given in Table 6.

_{0}= 0.73 does not make economic sense, and the regression coefficient b

_{1}= 3.03 shows that with an increase in the integrated indicator of financial security by 1 the integrated development indicator is expected to grow by an average of 3.03. The value of the even correlation coefficient R = 0.95 indicates a quite close internal correlation and the relation between these indicators. The coefficient of determination R

^{2}= 0.91 indicates that the change in the mean value of the integrated development indicator by 91% depends on the change in the mean value of the integrated financial security indicator, and by 9% on other factors that were not taken into consideration in this model. Comparing the actual value of the t-criterion with the tabular t

_{crit}= 2.15, it can be argued that the correlation coefficient for this model is statistically significant with a p = 0.95 probability. Comparing the actual F-criterion value with the tabular F

_{table}= 4.6, it can be argued that the generated regression model is adequate output to the original data with a p = 0.95 probability. Therefore, hypothesis H1 can be considered acceptable as the relationship between the development level and financial security of textile enterprises has been confirmed.

_{0}= 0.37 does not make economic sense, and the regression coefficient b

_{1}= 1.25 shows that with an increase in the ICS by 1 the integrated development indicator is expected to grow by an average of 1.25. The value of the pair correlation coefficient R = 0.92 indicates a fairly close internal correlation and the relation between these indicators. The determination coefficient R

^{2}= 0.85 indicates that the change in the mean value of the integrated development indicator by 85% depends on the change in the mean value of the individual integrated financial security indicator (ICS) by 15% on other factors that were not taken into consideration in this model. Comparing the actual t-criterion value with the tabular t

_{crit}= 2.15, it can be argued that the correlation coefficient for the third group of enterprises model is statistically significant with a probability of p = 0.95. Comparing the actual F-criterion value with the tabular F

_{table}= 4.6, it can be argued that this regression model is adequate to the original data with a probability of p = 0.95. Therefore, hypothesis H2 can be considered acceptable as the relationship between the development level and capital structure of the textile company has been confirmed.

_{0}= 0.37 does not make economic sense, and the regression coefficient b

_{1}= 1.5 shows that when the integrated current financing (ICF) indicator increases by 1 the integrated development indicator is expected to grow by an average of 1.5. The value of the pair correlation coefficient R = 0.87 indicates a high correlation and the relation between these indicators. The coefficient of determination R

^{2}= 0.76 indicates that the change in the mean value of the integrated development indicator by 76% depends on the change in the mean value of the individual ICF, and by 24% on other factors that were not taken into consideration in this model. Comparing the actual t-criterion value with the tabular t

_{crit}= 2.15, it can be argued that the correlation coefficient for this model is statistically significant with a probability of p = 0.95. Comparing the actual F-criterion value with the tabular F

_{table}= 4.6, it can be argued that the regression model is adequate to the original data with a probability of p = 0.95. Therefore, hypothesis H3 can be considered acceptable as the relationship between the development level and current financing of the textile enterprise has been confirmed.

_{0}= 0.61 does not make economic sense, and the regression coefficient b

_{1}= 1.29 shows that with an increase in the IFE by 1 the integrated development indicator is expected to grow by an average of 1.29. The value of the pair correlation coefficient R = 0.47 indicates a noticeable correlation between these indicators. The coefficient of determination R

^{2}= 0.22 indicates that the change in the mean value of the integrated development indicator depends only on 22% on the change in the mean value of the integrated IFE, and 78% on other factors that were not taken into consideration in this model. Comparing the actual t-criterion value with the tabular t

_{crit}= 2.15, it can be argued that the correlation coefficient for the model is not statistically presumable with a probability of p = 0.95. Comparing the actual F-criterion value with the tabular F

_{table}= 4.6, it can be argued that the regression model is not adequate to the original data with a probability of p = 0.95. Hypothesis H4 cannot be accepted, as there is no significant relationship between the development level and financial efficiency of the textile company. Financial efficiency affects only 22% of the textile enterprises; development. This is due to the fact that it includes both financial and managerial aspects, which need to be examined in more detail among the general set of factors in the textile enterprises development.

_{0}—integrated indicator of the textile enterprises development (IDI); x

_{1}—ICS; x

_{2}—ICF; x

_{3}—IFE. We have excluded the integrated financial assurance (IFS) indicator from the list of variables, as ICS, ICF and IFE are its components and correlate with this indicator. The simulation results and their econometric interpretation are given in Table 7.

_{0}= 0.83x

_{1}+ 0.77x

_{2}или IDI = 0.83·ICS + 0.77·ICF

^{2}= 0.95, F

_{table}< F (3.81 < 135.18), t

_{obs}= 16.44 exceeds t

_{crit}= 2.16. Thus, in order to improve the development level, textile industries should develop the financial support of the process, concentrating on capital formation and improving the efficiency of flow financing.

## 4. Discussion

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Ahmad, Sumera, Suraya Miskon, Rana Alabdan, and Iskander Tlili. 2020. Towards sustainable textile and apparel industry: Exploring the role of business intelligence systems in the era of industry 4.0. Sustainability 12: 2632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Ai, Hongshan, Shenglan Hu, Ke Li, and Shuai Shao. 2020. Environmental regulation, total factor productivity, and enterprise duration: Evidence from China. Business Strategy and the Environment 29: 2284–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ali, Zulqurnain, Bi Gongbing, and Aqsa Mehreen. 2019. Predicting supply chain effectiveness through supply chain finance: Evidence from small and medium enterprises. The International Journal of Logistics Management 30: 488–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boström, Magnus, Erik Andersson, Monika Berg, Karin Gustafsson, Eva Gustavsson, Erik Hysing, Rolf Lidskog, Erik Löfmarck, Maria Ojala, Jan Olsson, and et al. 2018. Conditions for transformative learning for sustainable development: A theoretical review and approach. Sustainability 10: 4479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceptureanu, Eduard Gabriel, Sebastian Ion Ceptureanu, Razvan Bologa, and Ramona Bologa. 2018. Impact of competitive capabilities on sustainable manufacturing applications in Romanian SMEs from the textile industry. Sustainability 10: 942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad Gholamzadeh, Feybi Ariani Goni, and Jirí Jaromír Klemes. 2018. Sustainable enterprise resource planning systems implementation: A framework development. Journal of Cleaner Production 198: 1345–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Csikosova, Adriana, Maria Janoskova, and Katarina Culkova. 2019. Limitation of financial health prediction in companies from post-communist countries. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 12: 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- da Silva, Paulo Cesar, Geraldo Cardoso de Oliveira Neto, José Manuel Ferreira Correia, and Henrricco Nieves Pujol Tucci. 2021. Evaluation of economic, environmental and operational performance of the adoption of cleaner production: Survey in large textile industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 278: 123855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Oliveira Neto, Geraldo Cardoso, José Manoel Ferreira Correia, Paulo Cesar Silva, Ariane Gaiola de Oliveira Sanches, and Wagner Cezar Lucato. 2019. Cleaner Production in the textile industry and its relationship to sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production 228: 1514–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drobyazko, Svetlana, Anna Barwinska-Malajowicz, Boguslaw Slusarczyk, Olga Chubukova, and Taliat Bielialov. 2020. Risk Management in the System of Financial Stability of the Service Enterprise. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 13: 300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fraczek, Bozena. 2020. A System to Support the Transparency of Consumer Credit Offers. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 13: 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco, Maria. 2017. Circular economy at the micro level: A dynamic view of incumbents’ struggles and challenges in the textile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 168: 833–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardas, Bhaskar, Rakesh Raut, and Balkrishna Narkhede. 2018. Modelling the challenges to sustainability in the textile and apparel (T&A) sector: A Delphi-DEMATEL approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption 15: 96–108. [Google Scholar]
- Gawin, Bartlomiej, and Bartosz Marcinkowski. 2017. Business intelligence in facility management: Determinants and benchmarking scenarios for improving energy efficiency. Information Systems Management 34: 347–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goswami, Priti. 2019. Literature review: Financial problems of micro, small and medium enterprises. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering 9: 115–36. [Google Scholar]
- Heredia-Mercado, Reddy, Shaly Flores-Piñas, Pedro Chavez, and Carlos Raymundo. 2021. Lean Manufacturing Production Management Model Under a Change Management Approach to Enhance Production Efficiency of Textile and Clothing SMEs. In International Conference on Intelligent Human Systems Integration. Cham: Springer, pp. 766–72. [Google Scholar]
- Jabłońska, Maria, Janina Stawska, and Daniella Czechowska. 2020. Country-Specific Determinants of Textile Industry Development in Poland: Comparative Analysis of the Years 2007 and 2017. Autex Research Journal 20: 186–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, Maneesh, and Irina Harris. 2020. Enterprise-wide diagnostic in the UK SME: Focus beyond tools and techniques. Production Planning and Control 31: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwilinski, Aleksy. 2019. Mechanism for assessing the competitiveness of an industrial enterprise in the information economy. Research Papers in Economics and Finance 3: 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Le, Thi-Nham, and Chia-Nan Wang. 2017. The integrated approach for sustainable performance evaluation in value chain of Vietnam textile and apparel industry. Sustainability 9: 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Le, Quoc An, Van Ai Tran, and Bao Long Nguyen Duc. 2019. The Belt and Road Initiative and its perceived impacts on the textile and garment industry of Vietnam. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 5: 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lei, Jin, Jiaping Qiu, and Chi Wan. 2018. Asset tangibility, cash holdings, and financial development. Journal of Corporate Finance 50: 223–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Yongbo, Mark Christhian Barrueta Pinto, and Ali Diabat. 2020. Analyzing the critical success factor of CSR for the Chinese textile industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 260: 120878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucato, Wagner Cezar, Elpidio Moreira Costa, and Geraldo Cardoso de Oliveira Neto. 2017. The environmental performance of SMEs in the Brazilian textile industry and the relationship with their financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management 203: 550–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luchko, Mykhailo, Liudmyla Holinach, Iryna Shchyrba, and Nataliia Muzhevych. 2020. Innovative Technologies and Social Responsibility of Business: Analysis of Possibilities. TEM Journal 9: 680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makhsudjonovna, Nargiza Muminova, and Dilfuza Marlenovna Maxmudova. 2019. Analysis of The Management And Financial Stability of The Textile Enterprises. International Journal of Scientific Research and Education 7: 8187–97. [Google Scholar]
- Melnychenko, Olexandr. 2020. Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Assess an Enterprise’s Financial Security? Journal of Risk and Financial Management 13: 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mugo, Alice Njeri, Julius Kahuthia, and Godfrey Kinyua. 2019. Effects of infrastructure on growth of small and medium enterprises in Kenya: A case of clothing and textile businesses in Nairobi Central Business District. International Academic Journal of Human Resource and Business Administration 3: 133–49. [Google Scholar]
- Najafabadi, Mostafa Kazemi, and M. Shafiq Muhammad Mankhi. 2020. Financial financing and its impact on supporting small and medium enterprises in the islamic economy. PalArch’s Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology 17: 12959–73. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, Xuan Hung, Thi Diep Uyen Doanb, and Van Ngoc Hoang. 2020. The impact of global supply chain management on performance: Evidence from Textile and garment industry. Uncertain Supply Chain Management 8: 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Panigrahi, Swayam Sampurna, and Nune Srinivasa Rao. 2018. A stakeholders’ perspective on barriers to adopt sustainable practices in MSME supply chain: Issues and challenges in the textile sector. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 22: 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prakash, Yerragola, B. Charwak, and P. Vijaya Kumar. 2020. Textile industry in new India: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management 21: 435–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radaelli, Claudio. 2020. Regulatory indicators in the European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Performance assessment, organizational processes, and learning. Public Policy and Administration 35: 227–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samo, Asif Hussain, and Hadeeqa Murad. 2019. Impact of liquidity and financial leverage on firm’s profitability–an empirical analysis of the textile industry of Pakistan. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 23: 291–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tursunov, Bobir. 2017. Role of Managing Industrial Stocks in Increasing of Textile Enterprises Capacity. Journal of Applied Management and Investments 6: 260–66. [Google Scholar]
- Van, Loan Thi-Hong, and Phuong Anh Nguyen. 2019. Corporate social responsibility and SMEs in Vietnam: A study in the textile and garment industry. Journal of Risk and Financial Management 12: 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Volodymyr, Lysenko, and Iryna Chernova. 2017. Algorithm of optimization of production of entomophages on the criterion of quality. News of Agrarian Sciences 7: 48–53. [Google Scholar]
- Wakeford, Jeremy J., Mulu Gebreeyesus, Tsegaye Ginbo, Kassahun Yimer, Ornélie Manzambi, Chukwumerije Okereke, Mairi Black, and Yacob Mulugetta. 2017. Innovation for green industrialisation: An empirical assessment of innovation in Ethiopia’s cement, leather and textile sectors. Journal of Cleaner Production 166: 503–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weqar, Faizi, and Imamul Haque. 2020. Intellectual capital and corporate financial performance in India’s central public sector enterprises. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital 17: 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Jie, Zhenzhong Ma, Zhiyang Liu, and Chun Kwok Lei. 2019. A contingent view of institutional environment, firm capability, and innovation performance of emerging multinational enterprises. Industrial Marketing Management 82: 148–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Nannan, and Jung E. Ha-Brookshire. 2019. Truly sustainable or not? An exploratory assessment of sustainability capability of textile and apparel corporations in China from the moral responsibility perspective. Fashion and Textiles 6: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwolak, Jan. 2017. The financial security of smalland medium-sized enterprises in Poland. Ekonomski Pregled 68: 399–412. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Integral indicators of individual components of financial support for the textile enterprises development. Source: author’s own calculations.

**Figure 2.**Three-level model of financial support for the development of the studied textile enterprises on the optimal value basis. Source: author’s own calculation.

**Figure 4.**Determining the distance from the reference standard on the integrated indicator of financial support for the textile enterprises development (Source: author’s own calculation).

Range of Values | Diagnostic Interpretation of the Result |
---|---|

0.75 | Optimal (O) |

0.85–0.76 0.74–0.65 | Normal (N) |

0.95–0.86 0.64–0.55 | Acceptable (A) |

1.05–0.96 0.54–0.45 | Low (L) |

≥1.06 ≤0.44 | Crisis (C) |

Communication Characteristic | Range of Change R |
---|---|

quite high | 0.9–0.99 |

high (strong, tight) | 0.7–0.9 |

notable | 0.5–0.7 |

moderate | 0.3–0.5 |

weak | 0.1–0.3 |

Indicators | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{a}\mathit{u}\mathit{t}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{b}\mathit{o}\mathit{f}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{l}\mathit{f}\mathit{i}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{s}\mathit{t}\mathit{b}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{o}\mathit{c}\mathit{c}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{q}\mathit{l}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{o}\mathit{c}\mathit{f}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{r}\mathit{p}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{f}\mathit{s}}$ | ${\mathit{r}}_{\mathit{b}\mathit{i}}$ | $\mathit{R}\mathit{O}\mathit{E}$ | $\mathit{R}\mathit{O}\mathit{C}$ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

A | 0.125 | 1.140 | 0.079 | 0.238 | 4.040 | 0.177 | 2.479 | 0.161 | 0.146 | 7.172 | 0.247 | 0.038 |

B | 0.120 | 1.120 | 0.079 | 0.239 | 1.266 | 0.213 | 1.693 | 0.683 | 0.110 | 2.236 | 0.254 | 0.040 |

C | 0.161 | 8.650 | 0.254 | 0.092 | 0.562 | 0.290 | 0.027 | 0.074 | 0.297 | 0.984 | 0.004 | 0.020 |

D | 0.351 | 1.995 | 0.262 | 0.420 | 0.781 | 0.186 | 0.965 | 0.253 | 0.722 | 1.374 | 0.232 | 0.026 |

E | 0.319 | 2.095 | 0.372 | 0.529 | 0.706 | 0.074 | 0.917 | 0.087 | 0.611 | 1.240 | 0.254 | 0.040 |

F | 0.577 | 6.032 | 0.237 | 0.508 | 1.090 | 0.105 | 0.504 | 0.066 | 0.587 | 1.925 | 0.235 | 0.049 |

G | 0.048 | 0.378 | 0.044 | 0.117 | 0.961 | 0.136 | 1.600 | 0.079 | 0.019 | 1.693 | 0.311 | 0.058 |

H | 0.336 | 12.048 | 0.429 | 0.266 | 1.217 | 0.186 | 3.573 | 0.298 | 0.461 | 2.148 | 0.346 | 0.031 |

I | 0.326 | 12.875 | 0.420 | 0.257 | 1.036 | 0.074 | 2.959 | 0.156 | 0.453 | 1.828 | 0.144 | 0.082 |

J | 0.630 | 1.531 | 0.543 | 0.282 | 0.823 | 0.079 | 1.095 | 0.232 | 0.310 | 1.448 | 0.312 | 0.069 |

K | 0.006 | 0.098 | 0.000 | 0.160 | 0.945 | 0.245 | 1.742 | 0.233 | 0.084 | 1.665 | 0.185 | 0.021 |

L | 0.324 | 10.975 | 0.418 | 0.281 | 1.384 | 0.164 | 4.805 | 0.298 | 0.472 | 2.447 | 0.046 | 0.071 |

M | 0.258 | 38.837 | 0.351 | 0.189 | 1.855 | 0.106 | 1.593 | 0.141 | 0.394 | 3.285 | 1.793 | 0.097 |

N | 0.264 | 1.732 | 0.174 | 0.333 | 0.784 | 0.277 | 1.016 | 0.282 | 0.443 | 1.380 | 0.040 | 0.122 |

O | 0.067 | 1.294 | 0.048 | 0.112 | 1.285 | 0.248 | 4.297 | 0.236 | 0.187 | 2.272 | 0.089 | 0.010 |

P | 0.421 | 8.157 | 0.515 | 0.351 | 1.112 | 0.256 | 1.432 | 0.234 | 0.525 | 1.961 | 0.067 | 0.080 |

Optimal value | 0.365 | 2.029 | 0.878 | 0.553 | 0.520 | 0.877 | 0.079 | 0.894 | 0.773 | 0.910 | 0.253 | 0.561 |

Name of a Company | Value of the Integrated Indicator (IFS) | Characteristics of a Group |
---|---|---|

N | 0.786 | Group of companies with normal financial support for development (N) |

D | 0.707 | |

O | 0.701 | |

M | 0.666 | |

P | 0.665 | |

A | 0.655 | |

B | 0.583 | Group of companies with acceptable financial support for development (A) |

H | 0.575 | |

C | 0.545 | Group of companies with low financial support for development (L) |

E | 0.544 | |

K | 0.538 | |

J | 0.525 | |

G | 0.510 | |

L | 0.508 | |

I | 0.495 | |

F | 0.374 | A group of companies with crisis financial support for development (C) |

**Table 5.**Integral development indicators (IDI) of researched textile enterprises groups and their interpretation.

Enterprise | Value | Interpretation |
---|---|---|

Group of companies with normal financial support for development (N) | 1.412 | development |

Group of companies with acceptable financial support for development (A) | 1.061 | stagnation |

Group of companies with low financial support for development (L) | 0.773 | regression |

A group of companies with crisis financial support for development (C) | 0.769 | regression |

Factor | Coefficients | Standard Error | t-Stat | p-Value | Lower 95% | Higher 95% |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Y (IDI-IFS) | −0.7284 | 0.1527 | −4.7709 | 0.0003 | −1.0558 | −0.4009 |

IFS | 3.0343 | 0.2564 | 11.8340 | 0.0000 | 2.4843 | 3.5842 |

Y (IDI-ICS) | 0.3702 | 0.0827 | 4.4775 | 0.0005 | 0.1929 | 0.5476 |

ICS | 1.2450 | 0.1385 | 8.9870 | 0.0000 | 0.9479 | 1.5421 |

Y (IDI-ICF) | 0.3699 | 0.1114 | 3.3203 | 0.0051 | 0.1310 | 0.6088 |

ICF | 1.5024 | 0.2271 | 6.6147 | 0.0000 | 1.0153 | 1.9896 |

Y (IDI-IFE) | 0.6085 | 0.2375 | 2.5620 | 0.0226 | 0.0991 | 1.1178 |

IFE | 1.2983 | 0.6584 | 1.9719 | 0.0687 | −0.1138 | 2.7104 |

Regression Equation | R | R^{2} | F | F_{tabl} | t_{crit} | t_{obs} |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

x_{0} = −0.73 + 3.03·x_{1} | 0.95 | 0.91 | 140.04 | 4.60 | 2.15 | 11.84 |

x_{0} = 0.37 + 1.25·x_{2} | 0.92 | 0.85 | 80.77 | 4.60 | 2.15 | 8.99 |

x_{0} = 0.37 + 1.5·x_{3} | 0.87 | 0.76 | 43.75 | 4.60 | 2.15 | 6.62 |

x_{0} = 0.61 + 1.29·x_{4} | 0.47 | 0.22 | 3.89 | 4.60 | 2.15 | 1.97 |

**Table 8.**Multiple regression model results for textile companies under study based on integrated capital structure (ICS), integrated current financing (ICF) and integrated financial efficiency (IFE).

df | SS | MS | F | F Sign | ||

Regression | 3 | 1.5583 | 0.5194 | 92.0283 | 0.0000 | |

Residue | 12 | 0.0677 | 0.0056 | |||

Total | 15 | 1.6260 | ||||

Factor | Coefficients | Standard Error | t-Stat | p-Value | Lower 95% | Higher 95% |

Y-intersection | 0.2031 | 0.0674 | 3.0117 | 0.0108 | 0.0562 | 0.3500 |

ICS | 0.7762 | 0.1207 | 6.4304 | 0.0000 | 0.5132 | 1.0393 |

ICF | 0.7784 | 0.1418 | 5.4914 | 0.0001 | 0.4696 | 1.0873 |

IFE | 0.2057 | 0.1865 | 1.1032 | 0.2916 | −0.2006 | 0.6120 |

df | SS | MS | F | F Sign | ||

Regression | 2 | 1.5514 | 0.7757 | 135.1759 | 0.0000 | |

Residue | 13 | 0.0746 | 0.0057 | |||

Total | 15 | 1.6260 | ||||

Coefficients | Standard Error | t-Stat | p-Value | Lower 95% | Higher 95% | |

Y-intersection | 0.2499 | 0.0528 | 4.7330 | 0.0004 | 0.1358 | 0.3640 |

ICS | 0.8303 | 0.1113 | 7.4623 | 0.0000 | 0.5899 | 1.0706 |

ICF | 0.7650 | 0.1424 | 5.3721 | 0.0001 | 0.4574 | 1.0727 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Boichenko, K.; Mata, M.N.; Mata, P.N.; Martins, J.N. Impact of Financial Support on Textile Enterprises’ Development. *J. Risk Financial Manag.* **2021**, *14*, 135.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14030135

**AMA Style**

Boichenko K, Mata MN, Mata PN, Martins JN. Impact of Financial Support on Textile Enterprises’ Development. *Journal of Risk and Financial Management*. 2021; 14(3):135.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14030135

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Boichenko, Kateryna, Mário Nuno Mata, Pedro Neves Mata, and Jéssica Nunes Martins. 2021. "Impact of Financial Support on Textile Enterprises’ Development" *Journal of Risk and Financial Management* 14, no. 3: 135.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14030135