Next Article in Journal
Understanding Volatility Transmission from Global Commodity Shocks to Frontier Financial Markets: Machine Learning, Nonlinearities, and State Dependence in Kenya
Next Article in Special Issue
Investment Experience and Financial Vulnerability: The Role of Financial Literacy, Gender and Social Context
Previous Article in Journal
When Confidence Becomes Risk: The Interplay of CEO Overconfidence, Strategic Risk-Taking, and Financial Performance in Indonesian Digital Banks
Previous Article in Special Issue
Financial Wellbeing and Financial Resilience: Insights from Personal Experiences and Gender Differences
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JRFM
Volume 19
Issue 5
10.3390/jrfm19050318
jrfm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

From Financial Practices to Sustainable Outcomes: A Resilience-Based Perspective

by
Enkeleda Lulaj
1,* and
Blerta Dragusha
2
1
Faculty of Business, University “Haxhi Zeka”, Eliot Engel, 30000 Peja, Kosovo
2
Faculty of Economy, University of Shkodra, Jeronim De Rada, Sheshi “Dugajt e Reja”, 4001 Shkoder, Albania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2026, 19(5), 318; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19050318
Submission received: 11 March 2026 / Revised: 21 April 2026 / Accepted: 23 April 2026 / Published: 27 April 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue From Financial Fragility to Resilience: Households, Investors, and Small Businesses)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Understanding how financial management practices translate into firm-level financial sustainability remains an important yet insufficiently explored issue. This study examines how financial discipline and financial risk management contribute to financial sustainability through financial resilience capacity. Drawing on a resilience-based perspective, financial resilience capacity is conceptualized as the firm’s ability to absorb financial shocks and adapt to uncertainty. The study employs a quantitative, survey-based research design using firm-level data collected during 2024–2025 from 217 respondents in financial and managerial roles. Financial discipline and financial risk management are operationalized through multi-item Likert-scale proxies capturing cost control, financial policy discipline, risk identification, diversification, and strategic financial planning, while financial sustainability is measured through indicators reflecting long-term financial stability and the ability to meet financial obligations. The relationships are tested using covariance-based structural equation modeling (SEM), including mediation analysis. The results show that both financial discipline and financial risk management significantly enhance financial resilience capacity, which in turn exerts a strong positive effect on financial sustainability. Financial resilience capacity acts as the primary mechanism linking financial practices to sustainable outcomes. While financial discipline has both direct and indirect effects, the impact of financial risk management operates fully through financial resilience capacity. These findings highlight the critical role of resilience in translating financial practices into long-term financial sustainability.

1. Introduction

Achieving financial sustainability has become a central concern for firms operating in increasingly volatile and uncertain economic environments (ElAlfy & Weber, 2019; Epstein & Roy, 2003; Bourgeois, 1985; Pabico, 2015). Beyond short-term financial performance considerations (Rappaport, 2005), firms are now expected to demonstrate the capacity to remain financially viable, stable, and adaptive over time. In this context, financial sustainability is defined as a firm’s ability to generate stable and enduring financial performance while maintaining strategic flexibility, ensuring long-term solvency, and supporting continuous value creation (Ameer & Othman, 2012; Lulaj & Thakore, 2026).
At the firm level, financial sustainability reflects an organization’s ability to generate enduring financial outcomes while preserving strategic flexibility and fostering long-term value creation (Barney, 1991; Penrose, 1995; Bansal & DesJardine, 2014). This shift has intensified scholarly attention toward the financial foundations of sustainability, particularly the role of internal financial practices in shaping long-term organizational outcomes (Eccles et al., 2014).
Within firms, financial discipline (Chung et al., 2026) and financial risk management (Bazyari, 2025) have long been recognized as core elements of sound financial governance (Attridge & Novak, 2022). Financial discipline refers to the consistent application of prudent financial policies, including cost control, efficient resource allocation, and adherence to long-term financial planning objectives. Financial risk management, in turn, refers to the systematic identification, assessment, and mitigation of financial risks that may affect firm performance and stability.
Financial discipline supports prudent resource allocation, cost control, and intertemporal decision-making, while financial risk management enables firms to anticipate, absorb, and mitigate exposure to financial shocks (M. C. Jensen, 1986; Hoyt & Liebenberg, 2011). Despite their recognized importance for organizational stability, empirical evidence remains fragmented regarding how, and through which internal mechanisms, these financial practices are translated into sustained financial outcomes over time.
Recent research suggests that the effectiveness of financial practices cannot be fully understood without accounting for firms’ adaptive capacities. In this regard, the concept of resilience has gained prominence across finance, management, and sustainability research as a capability that enables organizations to withstand disruptions and recover from adverse events (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Lulaj, 2025e). At the firm level, financial resilience capacity represents a dynamic capability that allows organizations to absorb financial shocks, reconfigure financial resources, and sustain core financial functions under conditions of uncertainty (Dinh et al., 2024; Pal et al., 2014). Building on this perspective, financial resilience capacity is conceptualized in this study as a mediating mechanism through which financial practices are translated into sustainable financial outcomes (Mura et al., 2023; Lulaj & Lulaj, 2025). Despite its growing relevance, however, financial resilience remains under-theorized and under-tested as an explanatory mechanism linking financial practices to financial sustainability.
The literature on financial sustainability has predominantly examined direct relationships between financial policies and performance-related outcomes (Wang et al., 2025; Ngilisho et al., 2025), often overlooking the internal processes through which these effects materialize (A. M. Fatemi & Fooladi, 2013; Lozano, 2015). As a result, the mechanisms through which disciplined financial behavior and financial risk management practices are translated into sustainable financial outcomes remain insufficiently specified. This limitation suggests the need for a process-oriented approach that explicitly models the internal pathways linking financial practices to sustainability outcomes, rather than assuming direct linear relationships. This omission limits the explanatory power of existing models and constrains theoretical integration between financial management and sustainability research.
The existing literature presents mixed and fragmented evidence regarding the relationship between financial practices and financial sustainability. A stream of studies provides supporting evidence that sound financial discipline and structured risk management contribute positively to firm performance and stability (e.g., Hoyt & Liebenberg, 2011; Eccles et al., 2014). However, other studies report inconsistent or context-dependent findings, suggesting that the effectiveness of these practices varies across firms and environments. Furthermore, a significant portion of prior research remains methodologically limited, as it primarily focuses on direct relationships while overlooking the internal mechanisms and processes through which financial practices are translated into sustainable outcomes. This limitation highlights the need for a more integrative and process-oriented approach.
Addressing this gap, resilience-based perspectives argue that sustainability is not an automatic consequence of financial controls or risk mitigation per se, but rather emerges from a firm’s capacity to absorb shocks, adapt to changing conditions, and sustain financial functionality over time (Walker et al., 2004; Folke et al., 2010; Miroudot, 2020). Accordingly, this study adopts a mediation-based framework in which financial discipline and financial risk management are expected to influence financial sustainability indirectly through financial resilience capacity. This approach allows for a more comprehensive understanding of how financial practices are transformed into sustainable outcomes.
From this perspective, financial resilience capacity constitutes a critical intermediary capability that channels the effects of financial discipline and financial risk management into durable financial sustainability.
While the conceptual appeal of this argument, empirical evidence testing financial resilience as a mediating mechanism remains limited, particularly at the firm level and within an integrated structural framework. Prior studies tend to examine resilience, risk management, and sustainability in isolation, leaving unanswered questions about their joint operation within firms’ financial systems (Conz & Magnani, 2020). Consequently, there is a clear need for theory-driven empirical research that explicitly models how core financial practices shape financial sustainability through resilience capacity. In doing so, the study explicitly positions financial resilience capacity as the central transmission mechanism, thereby advancing a process-oriented and capability-based explanation of financial sustainability.
Addressing this gap, the present study develops and empirically tests a resilience-based financial framework that links financial discipline and financial risk management to firm-level financial sustainability through financial resilience capacity. By examining both direct and mediating effects within a unified structural model, the study provides a systematic explanation of how financial practices are translated into sustainable outcomes at the firm level.
By positioning financial resilience capacity as the central transmission mechanism, this study contributes to the financial sustainability literature in three important ways. First, it integrates financial management and resilience perspectives into a unified explanatory model. Second, it clarifies the distinct roles of financial discipline and financial risk management in shaping sustainability outcomes. Third, it advances empirical understanding of sustainability as a capability-driven financial phenomenon rather than a direct by-product of financial practices alone. Compared to prior studies, which primarily focus on direct effects or isolated constructs, this study provides a novel integrated framework that explicitly models the internal mechanisms linking financial practices to sustainability outcomes.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Recent advances in corporate finance and sustainability research increasingly emphasize that long-term financial sustainability is shaped less by isolated financial outcomes and more by the quality of internal financial practices and the development of adaptive financial capabilities at the firm level. Moving beyond short-term profitability, contemporary scholarship converges on the view that firms achieve sustained financial viability through disciplined financial governance, strategic financial risk management, and resilience-oriented capacities that support continuity under conditions of uncertainty (Eccles et al., 2014; Gennaioli & Shleifer, 2018; Kose et al., 2022; Lulaj, 2023; Lulaj et al., 2023). Within this perspective, financial practices are not treated as ends in themselves, but as mechanisms through which firms stabilize financial structures and sustain adaptive capacity across economic cycles.
Within this stream, financial discipline (FD) is explicitly grounded in Agency Theory, which conceptualizes disciplined financial controls as mechanisms for constraining managerial opportunism and aligning financial decision-making with long-term firm value (C. Jensen & Meckling, 1976; M. C. Jensen, 1986). Empirical corporate finance research demonstrates that clearly defined cost and profitability targets, systematic review of credit and liability policies, and disciplined leverage management reduce financial vulnerability by limiting excessive debt accumulation and refinancing risk (Campello et al., 2010; Graham et al., 2015). Consistent with the pecking order logic in corporate finance, firms that prioritize internal financing over external debt exhibit greater financial stability during periods of market stress (DeAngelo et al., 2011; Bolton et al., 2011). Moreover, the systematic application of cost accounting techniques and the prioritization of high-cost debt repayment are associated with improved liquidity management and preserved financial slack, strengthening balance-sheet robustness under adverse conditions (Kaplan & Minton, 2012). Collectively, this literature positions financial discipline as a governance-oriented financial practice that stabilizes financial structures and creates the preconditions for adaptive capacity.
Parallel to financial discipline, financial risk management (FRM) is theoretically anchored in Modern Portfolio Theory, Enterprise Risk Management (ERM), and Strategic Risk Management Theory. Modern Portfolio Theory establishes diversification and portfolio rebalancing as foundational mechanisms for reducing risk without sacrificing expected returns (Markowitz, 1952, 1959). ERM frameworks extend this logic by emphasizing systematic identification, assessment, and monitoring of financial risks as part of strategic decision-making and corporate governance (Hoyt & Liebenberg, 2011). Empirical evidence indicates that firms adopting structured financial risk management systems experience lower earnings volatility and more stable cash flows, particularly in uncertain environments (Florio & Leoni, 2017). From a Dynamic Capabilities perspective, the alignment of investment decisions with strategic objectives and the periodic adjustment of financial portfolios reflect adaptive responses that allow firms to recalibrate risk–return profiles over time (Teece et al., 1997; Schilke et al., 2018). Accordingly, financial risk management is conceptualized as a forward-looking capability that enhances firms’ preparedness for financial uncertainty.
While financial discipline and financial risk management are often examined as direct antecedents of performance, a growing body of literature highlights the importance of financial resilience capacity (FRC) as an intermediate capability that enables firms to translate financial practices into sustained outcomes. Rooted in the Behavioral Theory of the Firm, resilience is associated with adaptive responses to performance shortfalls and environmental shocks (Cyert & March, 1963). Complementarily, Slack Resources Theory emphasizes that financial buffers allow firms to cope with disruptions without destabilizing core operations (Bourgeois, 1981). Contemporary Organizational Resilience Theory conceptualizes resilience as a higher-order capability encompassing resistance, recovery, and adaptation (Hillmann & Guenther, 2021). Empirical evidence from crisis contexts indicates that firms with structured financial reserves, resilience-oriented planning, and expert-informed financial decision-making are less likely to experience distress and are better positioned to maintain continuity and recover following disruptions (Wu et al., 2024). Importantly, this literature consistently emphasizes that financial resilience is a capability deliberately shaped by financial practices rather than an automatic by-product of firm characteristics.
The firm financial sustainability (FSS) literature increasingly reflects this capability-based perspective. Financial sustainability is theoretically grounded in Going Concern Theory and Intertemporal Solvency Theory, which conceptualize sustainability as the firm’s ability to maintain stable financial performance, meet long-term obligations, and preserve viability under economic uncertainty (Modigliani & Miller, 1958; Myers, 1977; IASB, 2018). Recent empirical studies extend this view by emphasizing that sustainable firms balance investment, financing, and risk decisions in ways that support long-term commitments (A. Fatemi et al., 2018; Nguyen, 2024; Lulaj, 2025b). From a Stakeholder Theory perspective, sustained financial viability underpins organizational legitimacy by enabling firms to meet obligations to key stakeholders over time (Hörisch et al., 2014). Together, these perspectives position financial sustainability as a long-term outcome reflecting stability, solvency, and adaptive capacity.
Despite these advances, existing research remains fragmented in explaining how internal financial practices are translated into sustainable financial outcomes. Much of the empirical literature examines financial discipline, financial risk management, or financial sustainability in isolation, offering limited insight into the internal mechanisms connecting financial governance to long-term viability. Recent contributions explicitly call for integrative, theory-driven frameworks that model resilience as the transmission mechanism linking financial practices to sustainability outcomes at the firm level (Medcalfe & Miralles Miro, 2021; Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). Addressing this gap, the present study advances a resilience-based perspective that conceptualizes financial resilience capacity as the central mechanism through which financial discipline and financial risk management are converted into enduring financial sustainability.

Hypotheses Development

Financial discipline reflects the extent to which firms adhere to prudent budgeting, cost control, liquidity planning, and intertemporal financial decision-making (Merchant, 1981; Crum, 1953; Zhu et al., 2025; Slater & Zwirlein, 1996). Prior research indicates that disciplined financial behavior enhances firms’ ability to preserve financial slack, maintain liquidity buffers, and avoid excessive leverage (DeAngelo & DeAngelo, 2007; Graham & Harvey, 2001). These practices reduce financial vulnerability and support continuity of financial operations under adverse conditions (Bates et al., 2009; Campello et al., 2010). From a capability-based perspective, financial discipline functions as a foundational mechanism shaping firms’ preparedness and response to financial adversity (Barney, 1991; Makadok, 2001). Accordingly, financial discipline is expected to play a central role in shaping financial resilience capacity.
H1. 
Financial discipline is positively associated with financial resilience capacity.
Financial risk management encompasses structured processes for identifying, assessing, and mitigating exposure to financial risks, including liquidity risk, credit risk, and market volatility (Miller, 1992; Gabriel & Baker, 1980; Bianchi & Bobba, 2013; Gaspar & Massa, 2006). Extensive evidence indicates that firms with well-developed risk management systems experience lower earnings volatility and greater financial stability (Eckles et al., 2014). By proactively managing financial risks, firms enhance their ability to anticipate and respond to adverse financial conditions (Nocco & Stulz, 2006; Mikes & Kaplan, 2014). Within dynamic capability frameworks, financial risk management strengthens firms’ capacity to manage uncertainty and adjust financial strategies over time (Teece et al., 1997; Helfat et al., 2007). Thus, firms that systematically engage in financial risk management are expected to exhibit stronger financial resilience capacity.
H2. 
Financial risk management is positively associated with financial resilience capacity.
Financial sustainability refers to a firm’s ability to maintain long-term financial viability while supporting ongoing operations and strategic objectives (Burch, 2018; Bercovitz & Mitchell, 2007; Volonino & Watson, 1990). Achieving sustainability requires the capacity to endure and adapt across economic cycles (Cruz et al., 2025; Langeland et al., 2016). Financial resilience capacity directly supports this objective by enabling firms to maintain financial functioning during periods of disruption and uncertainty (van der Vegt et al., 2015; Sizeland, 2025). By preserving financial flexibility and adaptive capacity, resilience enhances firms’ ability to sustain long-term financial performance (Faff et al., 2016; Kahn et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2025).
H3. 
Financial resilience capacity is positively associated with firm financial sustainability.
Although financial discipline and financial risk management are widely recognized as essential components of sound financial governance, their effects on financial sustainability are likely to operate through internal capability-building mechanisms. Financial discipline stabilizes financial structures and preserves adaptive capacity, while financial risk management enhances preparedness and response flexibility (Kantur & İşeri-Say, 2012; Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). These mechanisms converge in the development of financial resilience capacity, which functions as an intervening capability linking financial practices to sustainable outcomes.
Financial discipline enhances sustainability both directly and through resilience (Ayalew & Zhang, 2024), whereas financial risk management primarily operates through strengthening preparedness and response capabilities (Corbett, 2004). Accordingly, financial resilience capacity is expected to mediate these relationships.
H4. 
Financial resilience capacity mediates the relationship between financial discipline and firm financial sustainability.
H5. 
Financial resilience capacity mediates the relationship between financial risk management and firm financial sustainability.
Drawing on the relationships articulated above, Figure 1 summarizes the proposed framework.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model guiding the empirical analysis. The model positions financial discipline (FD) and financial risk management (FRM) as core financial practices influencing firm financial sustainability (FSS) through financial resilience capacity (FRC). Financial resilience capacity is specified as the central transmission mechanism linking financial practices to sustainable financial outcomes, with differentiated direct and mediated pathways consistent with a resilience-based perspective.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Purpose of the Paper

The purpose of this study is to empirically test how core financial practices translate into firm-level financial sustainability by assessing the direct effects of financial discipline and financial risk management on financial resilience capacity, as well as their indirect effects on financial sustainability through financial resilience capacity.

3.2. Data Collection and Sample

Data were collected during the period 2024–2025 through a structured questionnaire administered to firms operating across diverse sectors. The data collection was conducted by the authors using a purposive sampling approach, targeting firms with established financial management practices and respondents directly involved in financial decision-making processes. This sampling strategy ensures that the collected data are relevant and appropriate for examining firm-level financial practices (Etikan et al., 2016; Palinkas et al., 2015). The use of a structured survey instrument is appropriate for capturing firm-level practices and perceptions related to latent constructs (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
The survey targeted organizational respondents with direct responsibility for financial decision-making and oversight, ensuring that the information provided reflects firm-level financial practices and outcomes. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed to firms, of which 217 valid responses were obtained and retained for empirical analysis, yielding a response rate of 43.4%, which is considered acceptable for firm-level survey research. Respondents occupied senior managerial and professional financial roles, including senior management and executive positions, financial managers or controllers, middle management, and other specialized financial positions. This composition ensures adequate representation of strategic, operational, and control-oriented perspectives within firms. The middle management category encompasses treasury managers, operations managers, business unit managers, and planning and control managers, while other professional positions include accounting managers, risk managers, and budget managers. Table 2 in the result section presents the descriptive characteristics of the sample.
The questionnaire measured Financial Discipline (FD), Financial Risk Management (FRM), Financial Resilience Capacity (FRC), and Financial Sustainability (FSS) using established multi-item constructs assessed on a five-point Likert scale. Prior to full-scale data collection, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a small group of financial professionals to ensure clarity, relevance, and content validity of the measurement items (Hair et al., 2022).
Participation was voluntary, informed consent was obtained prior to data collection, and all responses were collected anonymously and treated as confidential in accordance with accepted ethical standards for social science research. These procedures are consistent with established ethical research standards, including voluntary participation, anonymity, and confidentiality (Bryman, 2016). The final sample size provides sufficient statistical power for structural equation modeling and is appropriate for examining the proposed direct and mediating relationships within the resilience-based financial framework.

3.3. Data Analysis

The study employs a covariance-based structural modeling perspective to empirically examine the proposed relationships among FD, FRM, FRC, and FSS. All latent constructs were operationalized using reflective multi-item measures captured through a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strong disagreement to strong agreement, an approach extensively adopted in organizational and financial research for modeling perceptual constructs (Likert, 1932; Kline, 2016).
The empirical procedure followed a stepwise and theory-aligned analytical sequence. In the first stage, descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients were computed to evaluate data quality, assess variability, and explore initial associations among the constructs, thereby ensuring the appropriateness of the dataset for multivariate modeling (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019).
Next, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted to assess the factor structure of the measurement items and their consistency with the conceptual specification of the constructs. The suitability of the data for factor analysis was evaluated using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, in line with established psychometric criteria (Fabrigar et al., 1999). Reliability was initially assessed via Cronbach’s alpha (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) and subsequently corroborated using Composite Reliability (CR), which offers a more precise reliability estimate in SEM contexts by incorporating standardized loadings and measurement error (Raykov, 1997; Hair et al., 2022).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was then applied to validate the measurement model and to assess the adequacy of the specified latent structure. All constructs were modeled as reflective, with indicators restricted to load on their respective latent variables, consistent with prevailing guidelines on construct specification (Jarvis et al., 2003; Brown, 2015). Convergent validity was evaluated using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE), with values exceeding recommended benchmarks indicating satisfactory explanatory power of the latent constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion to ensure that each construct is empirically distinct from the others (Hair et al., 2019).
Model fit was evaluated using multiple goodness-of-fit indices, including the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), in accordance with recommended SEM practices (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2016).
To address potential common method bias (CMB), both procedural and statistical remedies were applied. Procedurally, anonymity and confidentiality were ensured during data collection. Statistically, Harman’s single-factor test indicated that no single factor accounted for the majority of variance, suggesting that common method bias is unlikely to bias the results (Podsakoff et al., 2003). External validity is supported by the use of a cross-sectoral sample, enhancing the generalizability of the findings at the firm level (Calder et al., 1982; Lynch, 1983; McGrath & Brinberg, 1983).
To provide a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms, mediation analysis was employed to examine whether financial resilience capacity functions as a transmission channel linking financial discipline and financial risk management to financial sustainability. From a theoretical perspective, the resilience-based framework adopted in this study suggests that financial practices do not directly translate into sustainable outcomes, but rather operate through the development of internal adaptive capabilities (Teece et al., 1997; Helfat et al., 2007). Accordingly, financial resilience capacity is expected to mediate these relationships by capturing the firm’s ability to absorb shocks and adapt to financial uncertainty (Hillmann & Guenther, 2021; Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Bansal, 2016). Mediation analysis is therefore appropriate as it allows for the explicit testing of indirect effects and the identification of underlying causal mechanisms linking independent and dependent variables (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Hayes, 2018a).
Subsequently, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized direct and mediated relationships among the study variables. Mediation effects were examined using a bootstrapping approach with bias-corrected confidence intervals, a procedure recognized as best practice for testing indirect effects in latent variable models (Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Hayes, 2018b).
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 25.0; IBM Corp, 2017b) for preliminary analyses and IBM SPSS AMOS (version 25.0; IBM Corp, 2017a) for confirmatory factor and structural modeling, in accordance with established conventions in covariance-based SEM research.

3.4. Measures and Instrument Development

Table 1 summarizes the study’s constructs and measurement items. All items were developed based on established theories and prior empirical research in corporate finance, financial management, risk management, and sustainability-oriented firm performance. The measurement instruments capture core dimensions of financial discipline, financial risk management, financial resilience capacity, and firm financial sustainability. All constructs were operationalized using theoretically grounded proxies derived from prior literature, ensuring content validity and construct comparability (DeVellis, 2016). The measurement items were adapted from prior validated studies and adjusted to fit the context of firm-level financial management, ensuring both content validity and contextual relevance (Hair et al., 2022).

4. Results

The empirical analysis proceeds by evaluating both the measurement and structural components of the proposed resilience-based model linking financial discipline (FD), financial risk management (FRM), financial resilience capacity (FRC), and firm financial sustainability (FSS). First, the adequacy of the measurement model is assessed through factor structure, reliability, and validity diagnostics to establish the robustness of the latent constructs. Subsequently, structural equation modeling is employed to estimate the hypothesized direct relationships between financial practices and financial resilience capacity, as well as the mediated pathways through which financial resilience capacity transmits these effects to financial sustainability. Following the validation of the measurement model, the structural model is estimated to test the proposed hypotheses (H1–H5). The results are presented in a hypothesis-driven manner, clearly indicating the direction, strength, and statistical significance of each relationship.
Table 2 summarizes the demographic and professional profiles of the respondents. The sample is composed primarily of individuals with substantial financial and managerial experience, advanced educational backgrounds, and positions directly involved in financial planning, control, and risk-related decision-making. Overall, the respondent profile is appropriate for examining financial discipline (FD), financial risk management (FRM), financial resilience capacity (FRC), and financial sustainability (FSS), as it reflects informed perspectives from actors engaged in financial governance and long-term organizational resilience.
Table 3 reports descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among the study variables. The core constructs FD, FRM, FRC, and FSS exhibit moderately high mean values and strong, positive, and statistically significant intercorrelations. These associations provide preliminary empirical alignment with the proposed resilience-based structure. Demographic and professional variables show weaker relationships, and all correlations remain below critical multicollinearity thresholds, indicating suitability for subsequent structural analyses.
To assess potential common method bias, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted. The results indicate that no single factor accounts for the majority of variance, suggesting that common method bias is not a significant concern in this study (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
Table 4 reports the results of the exploratory factor and reliability analyses for the study constructs. The KMO statistics and Bartlett’s tests confirm adequate sampling adequacy and factorability across all constructs. All items load strongly on their factors, and the extracted components explain a substantial proportion of total variance. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients indicate acceptable to excellent internal consistency. Collectively, these results provide empirical support for the measurement quality of the constructs and justify their inclusion in subsequent confirmatory and structural analyses.
Table 5 reports the confirmatory factor analysis results for FD, FRM, FRC, and FSS. All standardized factor loadings are statistically significant, indicating strong indicator reliability. CR and MaxR (H) values demonstrate robust internal consistency, while AVE values support convergent validity of the measurement model. Overall, the results confirm the adequacy of the measurement model for subsequent structural analyses.
Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion by comparing the square root of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values (reported in Table 5) with inter-construct correlations (reported in Table 2). In all cases, the square root of AVE exceeds the corresponding inter-construct correlations, confirming discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2022).
Table 6 confirms that the proposed resilience-based structural model provides an excellent representation of the observed data. The convergence of absolute, incremental, and parsimony-adjusted evidence supports the adequacy of the model specification and validates the structural framework linking financial practices, resilience capacity, and financial sustainability. This validation justifies subsequent examination of direct and mediation analysis.
The structural relationships corresponding to hypotheses H1–H3 are presented in Table 7. Each hypothesis is evaluated based on standardized coefficients (β), statistical significance, and confidence intervals. In line with a hypothesis-driven approach, each hypothesis (H1–H3) is explicitly assessed and its empirical support is clearly indicated.
Table 7 reports the direct effects estimated using structural equation modeling.
H1 predicts that financial discipline is positively associated with financial resilience capacity. Financial discipline exerts a positive and statistically significant effect on financial resilience capacity (β = 0.418, p < 0.001), thus supporting H1. This finding indicates that disciplined financial practices contribute meaningfully to firms’ ability to build resilience against financial shocks.
H2 posits that financial risk management is positively associated with financial resilience capacity. Financial risk management demonstrates a particularly strong positive effect on financial resilience capacity (β = 0.919, p < 0.001), confirming H2 and highlighting risk management as a central mechanism in strengthening financial resilience.
In addition, H3 proposes that financial resilience capacity is positively associated with firm financial sustainability. Financial resilience capacity has a substantial and statistically significant effect on firm financial sustainability (β = 0.919, p < 0.001), thereby supporting H3. This result suggests that firms with stronger resilience capacities are better positioned to maintain long-term financial viability and stability under conditions of uncertainty. These results provide strong empirical support for the proposed direct relationships, confirming that both financial discipline and financial risk management significantly contribute to financial resilience capacity, which in turn drives financial sustainability.
To further examine the underlying mechanism of the proposed relationships, mediation analysis is conducted to test hypotheses H4 and H5. Each mediation hypothesis is explicitly evaluated, and its level of empirical support is clearly reported.
Table 8 presents the results of the mediation analysis. H4 proposes that financial resilience capacity mediates the relationship between financial discipline and firm financial sustainability. The indirect effect of financial discipline on firm financial sustainability through financial resilience capacity is positive and statistically significant (β = 0.384, p = 0.039), supporting H4. As the direct effect of financial discipline on firm financial sustainability remains significant, the mediation is classified as partial. This indicates that while financial discipline contributes directly to sustainability, a substantial portion of its impact operates through the development of financial resilience capacity.
H5 posits that financial resilience capacity mediates the relationship between financial risk management and firm financial sustainability. Furthermore, the indirect effect of financial risk management on firm financial sustainability via financial resilience capacity is positive and statistically significant (β = 0.845, p = 0.027), supporting H5. In this case, the absence of a direct effect suggests full mediation, indicating that financial risk management influences firm financial sustainability primarily through strengthening financial resilience capacity. Collectively, these findings underscore financial resilience capacity as a critical transmission mechanism through which core financial practices are translated into sustainable financial outcomes.
Figure 2 illustrates the estimated structural model linking core financial practices to firm financial sustainability within a resilience-based perspective. FD and FRM exert strong positive effects on FRC, which in turn significantly enhances FFS, indicating that resilience capacity functions as the central transmission mechanism. In addition, FD maintains a direct effect on FSS, confirming partial mediation, while the effect of FRM is fully transmitted through resilience capacity. Collectively, the model demonstrates that sustainable financial outcomes emerge through the development of financial resilience grounded in disciplined and risk-aware financial practices.

5. Discussion

This study advances a resilience-based perspective on financial sustainability by empirically examining how core financial practices are translated into financial outcomes through financial resilience capacity. The findings provide robust support for the proposed framework, demonstrating that financial discipline and financial risk management shape firm financial sustainability primarily by strengthening internal resilience mechanisms rather than through direct performance effects alone. This interpretation aligns with recent shifts in corporate finance and sustainability research that emphasize adaptive capacity and internal financial robustness as central to long-term viability under uncertainty.
Importantly, these findings extend prior literature by empirically validating financial resilience capacity not merely as a contextual condition, but as a measurable internal capability that actively mediates the relationship between financial practices and financial sustainability.
The positive and significant effect of financial discipline on financial resilience capacity confirms that disciplined financial governance plays a foundational role in stabilizing firms’ financial structures. Practices such as cost control, liability monitoring, prudent debt repayment, and reliance on internal financing appear to enhance firms’ ability to absorb financial shocks and preserve operational continuity. This finding is consistent with recent empirical evidence showing that disciplined financial policies reduce downside risk exposure and improve firms’ capacity to withstand adverse conditions without resorting to value-destructive adjustments (Dang et al., 2012; Lulaj & Minguez-Vera, 2024; Lulaj, 2025d).
Compared to prior studies that primarily treat financial discipline as a direct determinant of firm performance, the present findings reveal a more nuanced mechanism in which financial discipline exerts both a direct stabilizing effect and an indirect effect through financial resilience capacity.
Importantly, the partial mediation observed indicates that financial discipline not only supports resilience building but also retains a direct stabilizing influence on financial sustainability, reflecting its dual role as both a governance mechanism and a resilience enabler.
Financial risk management exhibits an even stronger relationship with financial resilience capacity, underscoring its centrality in shaping firms’ adaptive financial capabilities. The results suggest that strategic risk identification, diversification, portfolio monitoring, and alignment of investment decisions with long-term objectives substantially enhance firms’ ability to recalibrate financial structures in response to uncertainty. This finding reinforces recent evidence that structured risk management systems reduce earnings volatility and improve financial continuity, particularly in environments characterized by systemic shocks and macroeconomic instability (Farrell & Gallagher, 2019; Boubaker et al., 2020; Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Antolín-López, 2023; Kukalaj et al., 2026; Lulaj et al., 2026).
In contrast to prior empirical studies that report a direct relationship between financial risk management and firm performance, the present results demonstrate that this relationship is fully mediated by financial resilience capacity, indicating that risk management contributes to financial sustainability only through its effect on firms’ adaptive financial structures.
The full mediation effect further indicates that financial risk management contributes to financial sustainability through resilience capacity, highlighting resilience as the primary channel through which risk-aware financial strategies translate into durable outcomes.
The strong effect of financial resilience capacity on financial sustainability confirms its role as a critical internal capability underpinning long-term financial viability. Firms that structure financial resources to absorb shocks, maintain reserves, prioritize long-term planning, and incorporate expert financial input are better positioned to sustain stable operations and meet long-term obligations under uncertainty. This finding aligns with recent resilience research demonstrating that firms with stronger financial buffers and adaptive planning capabilities experience lower distress risk and faster recovery following crises (Ding et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2024; Lulaj, 2024, 2026).
Moreover, this study contributes to the literature by operationalizing financial resilience capacity as a distinct and measurable construct, thereby addressing a gap where resilience has often been treated as an abstract or indirectly inferred concept.
By empirically validating financial resilience capacity as a distinct construct rather than a contextual condition, this study strengthens the argument that resilience is an active capability shaped by managerial financial practices.
Taken together, the mediation results provide important theoretical insight into how financial practices are converted into sustainable outcomes. While prior research has often examined financial discipline, financial risk management, or financial sustainability in isolation, the present findings demonstrate that these relationships cannot be fully understood without accounting for internal resilience mechanisms.
This process-oriented explanation represents a key theoretical advancement, shifting the focus from static direct relationships toward dynamic internal capabilities that enable firms to sustain performance under conditions of uncertainty (Lulaj, 2025a).
By empirically isolating financial resilience capacity as the central transmission mechanism linking financial practices to financial sustainability, this study advances a more integrated and process-oriented understanding of financial sustainability consistent with contemporary resilience theory.
From a practical perspective, the findings provide concrete and actionable implications. Firms should institutionalize financial discipline through formal budgeting systems, enforce strict cost-control mechanisms, and prioritize internal financing strategies to reduce exposure to external shocks. In parallel, firms should adopt structured financial risk management practices, including continuous risk assessment, diversification strategies, and scenario-based financial planning. Policymakers may further support financial sustainability by promoting regulatory frameworks that enhance financial transparency, prudent leverage, and risk disclosure standards.
In sum, the findings contribute to the corporate finance, financial management, and sustainability literature by clarifying the internal pathways through which disciplined and risk-aware financial practices generate long-term financial stability. Rather than treating sustainability as a direct outcome of financial policies, the results highlight resilience capacity as the key mechanism that enables firms to absorb shocks, maintain continuity, and sustain financial viability over time.

6. Conclusions

This study offers a focused empirical validation of a resilience-based financial framework explaining how core financial practices are transformed into sustainable firm-level outcomes. The findings demonstrate that financial discipline and financial risk management constitute foundational drivers of financial resilience capacity, which emerges as the central mechanism underpinning financial sustainability.
By explicitly modeling and empirically testing this mediation structure, the study provides novel evidence on the internal processes through which financial practices influence sustainability outcomes, thereby addressing a critical gap in the existing literature.
The results establish financial resilience capacity as the primary transmission channel through which financial practices generate sustainable outcomes. Financial discipline exerts both direct and resilience-mediated effects on financial sustainability, whereas the influence of financial risk management is fully transmitted through resilience capacity. This structural differentiation highlights that sustainable financial performance depends not merely on the presence of financial practices, but on their integration into a firm’s adaptive and absorptive financial capabilities.
These findings contribute theoretically by advancing a resilience-based view of financial sustainability and by clarifying the distinct roles of discipline and risk management within this framework.
From a managerial perspective, the findings underscore the strategic importance of embedding disciplined financial behavior and structured risk management within a resilience-oriented financial architecture. Firms aiming to achieve sustainable financial outcomes should prioritize the systematic development of financial resilience capacity as a core capability rather than treating discipline and risk management as isolated control mechanisms.
Specifically, managers are encouraged to develop financial buffers, implement forward-looking risk assessment tools, and integrate resilience metrics into financial decision-making processes. Policymakers, in turn, should support initiatives that enhance firms’ financial transparency and risk governance standards.
This study is not without limitations. First, the use of cross-sectional data restricts the ability to capture dynamic changes in financial resilience over time. Second, the reliance on survey-based measures may introduce potential response bias. Third, the generalizability of the findings may be constrained by the specific sample and institutional context.
Future research may extend this framework by examining the dynamic evolution of financial resilience capacity across economic cycles. Longitudinal designs and multi-country comparisons would be particularly valuable in validating the stability and external applicability of the proposed relationships. In addition, future research may explore alternative mediating mechanisms beyond financial resilience capacity, such as organizational capabilities, governance quality, or strategic flexibility, to further refine the understanding of how financial practices translate into sustainable outcomes. Such extensions would further refine resilience-based explanations of sustainable financial performance.
Overall, this study reframes financial sustainability as an outcome of deliberately cultivated financial resilience, demonstrating that disciplined and risk-aware financial practices generate enduring value only when embedded within firms’ adaptive financial capacities.
In doing so, it offers a more comprehensive and theoretically grounded explanation of how firms achieve sustainable financial performance in increasingly uncertain environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.L. and B.D.; methodology, E.L.; software, E.L.; validation E.L. and B.D.; formal analysis, E.L.; investigation, E.L. and B.D.; resources, E.L.; data curation, E.L. and B.D.; writing—original draft preparation, E.L.; writing—review and editing, E.L. and B.D.; visualization, E.L. and B.D.; supervision, E.L.; project administration, E.L.; funding acquisition, B.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the absence of a formally established Institutional Review Board or Research Ethics Committee for non-clinical research at Haxhi Zeka University, and because the study involved minimal-risk, anonymous survey data collected from competent adult participants, without involving vulnerable groups or identifiable personal data.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are not publicly available due to confidentiality restrictions but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Akgün, A. E., & Keskin, H. (2014). Organisational resilience capacity and firm product innovativeness and performance. International Journal of Production Research, 52(23), 6918–6937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ameer, R., & Othman, R. (2012). Sustainability practices and corporate financial performance: A study based on the top global corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(1), 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Attridge, S., & Novak, C. (2022). Governance. In An exploration of bilateral development finance institutions’ business models (pp. 59–61). ODI. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep51285.14 (accessed on 8 April 2026).
  4. Avdimetaj, E., Lulaj, E., & Alcoriza, G. B. (2025). Bridging theory to practice: Empowering indigenous businesses through innovative analysis of audited financial statements. In I. Ghosal, S. Gupta, S. Rana, & D. Saha (Eds.), Indigenous empowerment through human-machine interactions: The challenges and strategies from business lenses. Emerald Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ayalew, M. M., & Zhang, J. H. (2024). Financial structure and innovation: Firm-level evidence from Africa. Asian Review of Accounting, 33(2), 189–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bani Mfarrej, M. F., Belyamani, I., Ahmad, S. Z., & Abu Bakar, A. R. (2025). Exploring the path to sustainable firm performance: The role of leadership, learning, and procurement in SMEs. Sustainable Futures, 10, 101454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bates, T. W., Kahle, K. M., & Stulz, R. M. (2009). Why do U.S. firms hold so much more cash than they used to? The Journal of Finance, 64(5), 1985–2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bazyari, A. (2025). Optimal risk management strategies in a diffusion risk process: A simultaneous problem. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2025(7), 718–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bercovitz, J., & Mitchell, W. (2007). When is more better? The impact of business scale and scope on long-term business survival, while controlling for profitability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(1), 61–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bianchi, M., & Bobba, M. (2013). Liquidity, risk, and occupational choices. The Review of Economic Studies, 80(2), 491–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Birou, L. M., Green, K. W., & Inman, R. A. (2019). Sustainability knowledge and training: Outcomes and firm performance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(2), 294–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bolton, P., Chen, H., & Wang, N. (2011). A unified theory of Tobin’s q, corporate investment, financing, and risk management. The Journal of Finance, 66(5), 1545–1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Boubaker, S., Cellier, A., Manita, R., & Saeed, A. (2020). Does corporate social responsibility reduce financial distress risk? Economic Modelling, 91, 835–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. The Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bourgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 28(3), 548–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Branicki, L. J., Sullivan-Taylor, B., & Livschitz, S. R. (2018). How entrepreneurial resilience generates resilient SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(7), 1244–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Burch, S. (2018). Small businesses and sustainability innovation: Confronting the gap between motivation and capacity. Centre for International Governance Innovation. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep17322 (accessed on 10 April 2026).
  23. Calder, B. J., Phillips, L. W., & Tybout, A. M. (1982). The concept of external validity. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 240–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Campello, M., Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2010). The real effects of financial constraints: Evidence from a financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 97(3), 470–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chung, A. M., Chung, R. K., & Pounder, J. S. (2026). Financial behavior toward suppliers by ethical conscientious companies: Evidence from Hong Kong-listed companies. The Chinese Economy, 59(1), 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Conz, E., & Magnani, G. (2020). A dynamic perspective on the resilience of firms: A systematic literature review and a framework for future research. European Management Journal, 38(3), 400–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Corbett, R. B. (2004). A view of the future of risk management. Risk Management, 6(3), 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Crum, L. R. (1953). The role of cost accounting in cost control. The Accounting Review, 28(3), 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cruz, R., Nobre, F., & dos Santos, J. P. (2025). The economic footprint of short-term rentals on local businesses: Evidence from Portugal. IZA—Institute of Labor Economics. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep73782 (accessed on 10 April 2026).
  30. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
  31. Dang, V. A., Kim, M., & Shin, Y. (2012). Asymmetric capital structure adjustments: New evidence from dynamic panel threshold models. Journal of Empirical Finance, 19(4), 465–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. DeAngelo, H., & DeAngelo, L. (2007). Capital structure, payout policy, and financial flexibility (Marshall School of Business Working Paper No. FBE 02-06). SSRN. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. DeAngelo, H., DeAngelo, L., & Whited, T. M. (2011). Capital structure dynamics and transitory debt. Journal of Financial Economics, 99, 235–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications (Vol. 26). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ding, W., Levine, R., Lin, C., & Xie, W. (2021). Corporate immunity to the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Financial Economics, 141(2), 802–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Dinh, H. T. T., Nguyen, Q. L. H. T. T., & Thanh Nguyen, P. (2024). Constructing a resilience measurement model for small and medium-sized enterprises in Vietnam: A PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research (JEECAR), 11(3), 526–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Business Research, 13, 215–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Eckles, D. L., Hoyt, R. E., & Miller, S. M. (2014). The impact of enterprise risk management on the marginal cost of reducing risk: Evidence from the insurance industry. Journal of Banking & Finance, 43, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. ElAlfy, A., & Weber, O. (2019). The financial sector and sustainability. In Corporate sustainability reporting: The case of the banking industry (pp. 8–9). Centre for International Governance Innovation. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep24967.11 (accessed on 9 April 2026).
  41. Epstein, M. J., & Roy, M.-J. (2003). Making the business case for sustainability: Linking social and environmental actions to financial performance. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 9, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Faff, R., Kwok, W. C., Podolski, E. J., & Wong, G. (2016). Do corporate policies follow a life-cycle? Journal of Banking & Finance, 69, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Farrell, M., & Gallagher, R. (2019). Moderating influences on the ERM maturity–performance relationship. Research in International Business and Finance, 47, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fatemi, A., Glaum, M., & Kaiser, S. (2018). ESG performance and firm value: The moderating role of disclosure. Global Finance Journal, 38, 45–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fatemi, A. M., & Fooladi, I. J. (2013). Sustainable finance: A new paradigm. Global Finance Journal, 24(2), 101–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Florio, C., & Leoni, G. (2017). Enterprise risk management and firm performance: The Italian case. The British Accounting Review, 49, 56–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Freedman, J. (2000). Limited liability: Large company theory and small firms. The Modern Law Review, 63(3), 317–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gabriel, S. C., & Baker, C. B. (1980). Concepts of business and financial risk. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62(3), 560–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gaspar, J., & Massa, M. (2006). Idiosyncratic volatility and product market competition. The Journal of Business, 79(6), 3125–3152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gennaioli, N., & Shleifer, A. (2018). A crisis of beliefs: Investor psychology and financial fragility. Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2001). The theory and practice of corporate finance: Evidence from the field. Journal of Financial Economics, 60, 187–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Graham, J. R., Leary, M. T., & Roberts, M. R. (2015). A century of capital structure: The leveraging of corporate America. Journal of Financial Economics, 118(3), 658–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Guo, J., He, J., Pu, J., & Yang, Y. (2025). Impact of emergencies and supply chain resilience on corporate financial decision-making: An empirical analysis of Chinese manufacturing firms. Asia Pacific Business Review, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar]
  59. Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hayes, A. F. (2018a). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (methodology in the social sciences) (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hayes, A. F. (2018b). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M. A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., & Winter, S. G. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hillmann, J., & Guenther, E. (2021). Organizational resilience: A valuable construct for management research? International Journal of Management Reviews, 23, 7–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hoyt, R. E., & Liebenberg, A. P. (2011). The value of enterprise risk management. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 78(4), 795–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hörisch, J., Freeman, R. E., & Schaltegger, S. (2014). Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization & Environment, 27(4), 328–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. IBM Corp. (2017a). IBM SPSS Amos for Windows, Version 25.0. IBM Corp. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-amos (accessed on 11 January 2026).
  68. IBM Corp. (2017b). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. IBM Corp. Available online: https://www.ibm.com/products/spss-statistics (accessed on 10 January 2026).
  69. International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). (2018). Conceptual framework for financial reporting. IFRS Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  70. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jensen, C., & Meckling, H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jensen, M. C. (1986). Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance, and takeovers. The American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–329. [Google Scholar]
  73. Jiang, W., & Liu, B. (2025). Registration reform: A game-changer for corporate financial discipline? Finance Research Letters, 85(Pt E), 108254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kahn, W. A., Barton, M. A., & Fellows, S. (2013). Organizational crises and the disturbance of relational systems. The Academy of Management Review, 38(3), 377–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kantur, D., & İşeri-Say, A. (2012). Organizational resilience: A conceptual integrative framework. Journal of Management & Organization, 18(6), 762–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kaplan, S. N., & Minton, B. A. (2012). How has CEO turnover changed? Review of Financial Studies, 25(1), 1–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  78. Kose, M. A., Kurlat, S., Ohnsorge, F., & Sugawara, N. (2022). A cross-country database of fiscal space. Journal of International Money and Finance, 128, 102682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kukalaj, R., Lulaj, E., & Dragusha, B. (2025). Evaluating business performance through audited financial statements: Considerations for future trends in indigenous finance. In I. Ghosal, S. Gupta, S. Rana, & D. Saha (Eds.), Indigenous empowerment through human-machine interactions: The challenges and strategies from business lenses. Emerald Publishing. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kukalaj, R., Lulaj, E., Shabani, H., & Mazreku, I. (2026). Control, sustainability, and risk: A structural perspective within financial decision systems. EDPACS, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Langeland, K. S., Manheim, D., McLeod, G., & Nacouzi, G. (2016). Adapt and respond: Supply-chain risk management. In How civil institutions build resilience: Organizational practices derived from academic literature and case studies (pp. 19–26). RAND Corporation. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt1btc0m7.10 (accessed on 11 April 2026).
  82. Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55. [Google Scholar]
  84. Lozano, R. (2015). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lulaj, E. (2023). A sustainable business profit through customers and its impacts on three key business domains: Technology, innovation, and service (TIS). Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 21(1), 19–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lulaj, E. (2024). Thriving amidst uncertainty: A financial blueprint for the public budget. Public Sector Economics, 48(4), 493–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lulaj, E. (2025a). Decoding the financial zeitgeist: A scientific exploration of the calculus of capital for cost-efficient and sustainable growth in investments and operations. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 22(2), e230171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Lulaj, E. (2025b). Digitalization as catalysts of change in finance, accounting, and reporting: Uncovering symbiotic relationships among financial factors. Studies in Business and Economics, 20(1), 97–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Lulaj, E. (2025c). Discerning financial and investment epiphanies: Challenges, inhibitions, and global perspectives—What secrets does research reveal? Studia Universitatis “Vasile Goldis” Arad—Economics Series, 35(3), 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Lulaj, E. (2025d). Penny-wise acumen in costonomics: Transforming costs into entrepreneurial gold through smart financial management. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(1), 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Lulaj, E. (2025e). Unearthing the depths of revenue precision: A cutting-edge research agenda for empowering agile finance. Croatian Economic Survey, 27(1), 29–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Lulaj, E. (2026). Spotlight on sustainable finance and managerial accounting: The analytical triad for a profitable and sustainable future. Thailand and The World Economy, 44(1), 26–61. [Google Scholar]
  93. Lulaj, E., & Brajković, M. (2025). The moderating role of finance, accounting, and digital disruption in ESG, financial reporting, and auditing: A triple-helix perspective. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(5), 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lulaj, E., Dragusha, B., & Hysa, E. (2023). Investigating accounting factors through audited financial statements in businesses toward a circular economy: Why a sustainable profit through qualified staff and investment in technology? Administrative Sciences, 13(3), 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Lulaj, E., Dragusha, B., & Lulaj, D. (2024). Market mavericks in emerging economies: Redefining sales velocity and profit surge in today’s dynamic business environment. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 17(9), 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Lulaj, E., Hysa, E., & Panait, M. (2026). Does digitalization drive sustainable transformation in finance and accounting? Kybernetes, 55(1), 631–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Lulaj, E., & Lulaj, D. (2025). Expenses mastery: Thriving on thrift for sustainable budgeting and elevating Finnov. Ekonomika, 104(4), 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Lulaj, E., & Minguez-Vera, A. (2024). Cash flow dynamics: Amplifying swing models in a volatile economic climate for financial resilience and outcomes. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business, 71(3), 315–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lulaj, E., & Thakore, R. (2026). Sustainability tactics in consumer finance: Exploring moderation of behavior, desire and service. EDPACS, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Lynch, J. G. (1983). The role of external validity in theoretical research. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 109–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Markowitz, H. (1952). Portfolio selection. The Journal of Finance, 7(1), 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Markowitz, H. (1959). Portfolio selection: Efficient diversification of investment. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  104. McGrath, J. E., & Brinberg, D. (1983). External validity and the research process: A comment on the Calder/Lynch dialogue. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. McShane, M. K., Nair, A., & Rustambekov, E. (2011). Does enterprise risk management increase firm value? Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 26(4), 641–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Medcalfe, S., & Miralles Miro, E. (2021). Sustainable practices and financial performance in fashion firms. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 26(1), 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Merchant, K. A. (1981). The design of the corporate budgeting system: Influences on managerial behavior and performance. The Accounting Review, 56(4), 813–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Mikes, A., & Kaplan, R. R. (2014). Towards a contingency theory of enterprise risk management (pp. 1–45). Working Paper 13-063. Harvard Business School. [Google Scholar]
  109. Miller, K. D. (1992). A framework for integrated risk management in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 311–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Miroudot, S. (2020). Resilience versus robustness in global value chains: Some policy implications. VoxEU CEPR. [Google Scholar]
  111. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297. [Google Scholar]
  112. Mura, R., Vicentini, F., Botti, L. M., & Chiriacò, M. V. (2023). Economic and environmental outcomes of a sustainable and circular approach: Case study of an Italian wine-producing firm. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5, 147–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ngilisho, M., Mori, N., & Kitindi, E. (2025). The effect of company goals on the relationship between foreign ownership and financial performance of listed companies in Kenya and Tanzania. Journal of African Business, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Nguyen, T. H. (2024). The impact of capital structure on the performance of state-invested enterprises in Vietnam. Cogent Economics & Finance, 12(1), 2399955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Nocco, B., & Stulz, R. (2006). Enterprise risk management: Theory and practice. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 18, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  118. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., & Antolín-López, R. (2023). How do companies measure and report corporate sustainability? A comparison among the most innovative European companies (JRC Publication No. 132579). Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N., & Bansal, P. (2016). The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1615–1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Pabico, C. (2015). Creating supportive environments and thriving in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous world. The Journal of Nursing Administration, 45(10), 471–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Pal, R., Torstensson, H., & Mattila, H. (2014). Antecedents of organizational resilience in economic crises—An empirical study of swedish textile and clothing SMEs. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 410–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., & Duan, N. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Penrose, E. (1995). The theory of the growth of the firm (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Rappaport, A. (2005). The economics of short-term performance obsession. Financial Analysts Journal, 61(3), 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Schilke, O., Hu, S., & Helfat, C. E. (2018). Quo vadis, dynamic capabilities? A content-analytic review of the current state of knowledge and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 390–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Sizeland, E. (2025). Front Matter. In Resilience first: Strengthening individuals, securing the United States, and protecting the free world (pp. 1–6). Atlantic Council. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep71436.1 (accessed on 12 April 2026).
  130. Slater, S. F., & Zwirlein, T. J. (1996). The structure of financial strategy: Patterns in financial decision making. Managerial and Decision Economics, 17(3), 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson. [Google Scholar]
  132. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. van der Vegt, G. S., Essens, P., Wahlström, M., & George, G. (2015). From the editors—Managing risk and resilience [Editorial]. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 971–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Volonino, L., & Watson, H. J. (1990). The strategic business objectives method for guiding executive information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(3), 27–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Wang, Z., Huang, J., Tang, S., Luo, R., & Huang, H. (2025). Can restrictive green financial policies enhance enterprise value? The mediating role of ESG performance. Applied Economics Letters, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Wu, W., Zhang, S., Fan, Y., & Shi, Y. (2024). Financial flexibility, firm performance, and financial distress: A comparative study of China and the U.S. during pandemics. International Review of Financial Analysis, 96(Pt B), 103706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Zhu, C., Liang, X., & Yao, J. (2025). The role of market value management and liquidity management in the shareholder equity management-firm performance relationship. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2464950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jrfm 19 00318 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual resilience-based financial perspective. Source: Developed by the author based on the theoretical framework and hypotheses of the study.
Figure 1. Conceptual resilience-based financial perspective. Source: Developed by the author based on the theoretical framework and hypotheses of the study.
Jrfm 19 00318 g001
Jrfm 19 00318 g002
Figure 2. Estimated structural model. Source: Author’s estimations based on Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Notes: Financial Discipline (FD), Financial Risk Management (FRM), Financial Resilience Capacity (FRC), Firm Financial Sustainability (FSS). Values on arrows represent standardized path coefficients (two decimals). All displayed paths are statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Figure 2. Estimated structural model. Source: Author’s estimations based on Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Notes: Financial Discipline (FD), Financial Risk Management (FRM), Financial Resilience Capacity (FRC), Firm Financial Sustainability (FSS). Values on arrows represent standardized path coefficients (two decimals). All displayed paths are statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Jrfm 19 00318 g002
Table 1. Measurement Constructs and Items.
Table 1. Measurement Constructs and Items.
FactorCodeMeasurement ItemsSource
Financial
Discipline
(FD)		FD1Cost and profitability targets are clearly definedAkgün and Keskin (2014)
Lulaj et al. (2024)
Bani Mfarrej et al. (2025)
Lulaj and Brajković (2025)
Kukalaj et al. (2025)
Bazyari (2025)
Birou et al. (2019)
Branicki et al. (2018)
Duchek (2020)
Jiang and Liu (2025)
McShane et al. (2011)
Freedman (2000)
Lulaj (2025c)
Avdimetaj et al. (2025)
FD2Credit and liability policies are regularly reviewed
FD3Cost accounting techniques are systematically applied
FD4High-cost debt is prioritized for repayment
FD5Internal financing is preferred over external debt
Financial
Risk
Management (FRM)		FRM1Long-term savings and investment strategies aim to ensure financial stability
FRM2Financial resources are diversified as part of long-term strategy
FRM3Investment decisions align with strategic development objectives
FRM4Investment portfolios are periodically reviewed and rebalanced
FRM5Financial risks are systematically identified and addressed
Financial
Resilience
Capacity (FRC)		FRC1Financial resources are structured to absorb unexpected shocks
FRC2Financial reserves support continuity during adverse conditions
FRC3Financial planning prioritizes long-term resilience over short-term gains
FRC4Financial capacity enables stable operations under uncertainty
FRC5Expert input is used to strengthen financial resilience
Financial Sustainability
(FSS)		FSS1Financial performance remains stable over time
FSS2Long-term financial obligations can be consistently met
FSS3Financial viability is maintained under economic uncertainty
FSS4Operations can be sustained without financial distress
Source: Author-developed measurement items based on the study’s conceptual framework and prior literature on financial discipline, financial risk management, financial resilience, and financial sustainability. Notes: All items were measured using a Likert-type scale (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The constructs were operationalized as latent variables within the structural equation modeling (SEM) framework.
Table 2. Composition and Characteristics of the Respondent Sample.
Table 2. Composition and Characteristics of the Respondent Sample.
VariableCategoryNo.%
EXPLess than 5 years3616.6
5–10 years9342.9
11–15 years5424.9
More than 15 years3415.7
GENMale14868.2
Female6931.8
AGEUnder 30 years6027.6
30–39 years7534.6
40–49 years5726.3
50 years and above2511.5
EDUBachelor’s degree7434.1
Master’s degree or higher10447.9
Other3918.0
POSSenior management/Executive7835.9
Financial manager/Controller8840.6
Middle management167.4
Other professional position3516.1
Source: Author’s calculations based on survey data. Notes: EXP (professional experience), GEN (gender), EDU (highest educational attainment), POS (organizational position). The category Other under EDU includes doctoral-level qualifications (PhD or equivalent) and professional finance, audit, accounting-related education and certifications. The category Middle management includes (Treasury Manager, Operations Manager, Business Unit Manager, Planning & Control Manager). The category Other professional position includes (Accounting Manager, Risk Manager, Budget Manager).
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix.
Table 3. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix.
VariableMeanSDGENAGEEDUPOSEXPFDFRMFRCFSS
GEN1.320.471
AGE2.220.980.40 **1
EDU1.840.70−0.080.31 **1
POS2.041.040.31 **0.22 **0.081
EXP2.400.940.71 **0.50 **0.040.69 **1
FD3.361.180.60 **0.61 **0.31 **0.71 **0.85 **1
FRM3.221.280.63 **0.63 **0.32 **0.71 **0.87 **0.97 **1
FRC3.271.170.60 **0.61 **0.34 **0.68 **0.82 **0.93 **0.94 **1
FSS3.310.840.59 **0.62 **0.31 **0.57 **0.75 **0.86 **0.89 **0.83 **1
Source: Author’s calculations using SPSS. Notes: GEN (gender), AGE (age group), EDU (highest educational attainment), POS (organizational position), EXP (professional experience). FD (financial discipline), FRM (financial risk management), FRC (financial resilience capacity), FSS (financial sustainability). ** p < 0.01 (two-tailed).
Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis of FD, FRM, FRC, and FSS.
Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis of FD, FRM, FRC, and FSS.
FactorItemsFDFRMFRCFSSKMOTVE (%)α
FDFD10.909
FD20.699
FD30.947
FD40.938
FD50.968 0.8580.60.94
FRMFRM1 0.932
FRM2 0.982
FRM3 0.981
FRM4 0.979
FRM5 0.981 0.9094.30.98
FRCFRC1 0.905
FRC2 0.748
FRC3 0.952
FRC4 0.827
FRC5 0.781 0.8471.60.89
FSSFSS1 0.867
FSS2 0.899
FSS3 0.895
FSS4 0.8400.6261.60.72
Source: Author’s calculations based on survey data. Notes: FD (financial discipline), FRM (financial risk management), FRC (financial resilience capacity), FSS (financial sustainability), KMO (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy), TVE (total variance explained), α (Cronbach’s alpha). Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is significant at p < 0.001 for all constructs. Factor extraction was performed using Principal Component Analysis; Varimax rotation was applied where applicable.
Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), convergent validity and reliability.
Table 5. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), convergent validity and reliability.
ConstructItemSLCRAVEMaxR(H)
Financial
Discipline
(FD)		FD10.880.940.770.99
FD20.59
FD30.93
FD40.92
FD50.96
Financial
Risk
Management
(FRM)		FRM10.890.980.930.99
FRM20.98
FRM30.96
FRM40.97
FRM50.99
Financial
Resilience
Capacity
(FRC)		FRC10.900.900.650.97
FRC20.68
FRC30.98
FRC40.75
FRC50.68
Financial
Sustainability
(FSS)		FSS10.540.710.450.73
FSS20.69
FSS30.75
FSS40.54
Source: Author’s calculations based on survey data using AMOS. Notes: All standardized factor loadings are statistically significant (p < 0.001). CR (Composite Reliability), AVE (Average Variance Extracted), MaxR(H) (Maximum Reliability), Standardized loading (SL).
Table 6. Empirical Adequacy of the Resilience-Based Financial Framework.
Table 6. Empirical Adequacy of the Resilience-Based Financial Framework.
Fit IndexRecommended CriterionModel ValueEvaluation
χ2 (CMIN)—170.44—
Degrees of Freedom (df)—102—
χ2/df (CMIN/DF)<2.001.67Excellent
RMR<0.050.03Excellent
GFI≥0.900.93Excellent
AGFI≥0.850.86Excellent
NFI≥0.950.98Excellent
IFI≥0.950.99Excellent
TLI≥0.950.98Excellent
CFI≥0.950.99Excellent
RMSEA≤0.060.06Excellent (close fit)
RMSEA PCLOSE>0.050.25Excellent (close fit supported)
PNFI≥0.500.58Excellent
PCFI≥0.500.59Excellent
Hoelter (0.05)≥150161Excellent
Hoelter (0.01)≥150176Excellent
Source: Author’s calculations based on survey data using AMOS. Notes: χ2 (Chi-square statistic), df (Degrees of freedom), CMIN/DF (Normed chi-square), RMR (Root Mean Square Residual), GFI (Goodness-of-Fit Index), AGFI (Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index), NFI (Normed Fit Index), IFI (Incremental Fit Index), TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), PCLOSE (Test of close fit), PNFI (Parsimony Normed Fit Index), PCFI (Parsimony Comparative Fit Index). All indices meet or exceed stringent recommended thresholds, indicating excellent overall model fit.
Table 7. Structural Model—Direct Effects.
Table 7. Structural Model—Direct Effects.
HypothesisPathBSEC.R.p ValueβCIlowCIhighSupported
H1FD → FRC0.3660.02912.529<0.001 (***)0.4180.1300.783Yes
H2FRM → FRC0.8010.05315.142<0.001 (***)0.9190.6310.997Yes
H3FRC → FSS0.4610.0587.989<0.001 (***)0.9190.2051.312Yes
Source: Author’s calculations based on Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), Maximum Likelihood Estimation. Notes: (Unstandardized regression coefficient (B), standard error (SE), critical ratio (C.R.), standardized regression coefficient (β), percentile bootstrap confidence intervals (CIlow, CIhigh). Financial Discipline (FD), Financial Risk Management (FRM), Financial Resilience Capacity (FRC), Firm Financial Sustainability (FSS). Significance levels: *** p < 0.001.).
Table 8. Mediation Analysis.
Table 8. Mediation Analysis.
HypothesisIndirect PathIndirect βp ValueDirect βCIlowCIhighTotal βSupported
H4FD → FRC → FSS0.3840.039 (**)0.3450.0540.9860.729Supported (Partial mediation)
H5FRM → FRC → FSS0.8450.027 (**)—0.1891.0580.845Supported (Full mediation)
Source: Author’s calculations based on bootstrap mediation analysis in AMOS. Notes: (Indirect effect = a × b, where a represents the standardized coefficient for the path from the independent variable to the mediator and b represents the standardized coefficient for the path from the mediator to the dependent variable. Total effect = Direct β + Indirect β. CIlow/CIhigh represent two-tailed percentile bootstrap confidence intervals for standardized indirect effects. Financial Discipline (FD), Financial Risk Management (FRM), Financial Resilience Capacity (FRC), Firm Financial Sustainability (FSS). ** p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lulaj, E.; Dragusha, B. From Financial Practices to Sustainable Outcomes: A Resilience-Based Perspective. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2026, 19, 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19050318

AMA Style

Lulaj E, Dragusha B. From Financial Practices to Sustainable Outcomes: A Resilience-Based Perspective. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2026; 19(5):318. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19050318

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lulaj, Enkeleda, and Blerta Dragusha. 2026. "From Financial Practices to Sustainable Outcomes: A Resilience-Based Perspective" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 19, no. 5: 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19050318

APA Style

Lulaj, E., & Dragusha, B. (2026). From Financial Practices to Sustainable Outcomes: A Resilience-Based Perspective. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 19(5), 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19050318

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop