Skip to main content
Future Business Journal
Download PDF

A systematic review of financial performance in the manufacturing industry

Future Business Journal volume 10, Article number: 70 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Achieving exceptional financial performance is a primary goal for every management team due to its importance in establishing a solid firm structure and facilitating growth. However, several factors consistently hinder the attainment of this objective, resulting in adverse effects on a firm’s performance and financial success. Therefore, this study aims to analyze scholarly publications to understand relevant factors influencing the financial performance of firms in the manufacturing industry. Using keywords in the Scopus database, we identified a total of 808 papers published between 1987 and 2022, and ultimately selected 289 for further analysis based on predetermined criteria. The selected literature was then analyzed in two different ways. First, we discerned the crucial factors affecting the financial performance of manufacturing firms. Our systematic review revealed that organizational characteristics (e.g., CSR practices, strategy, board characteristics, innovation & technology, information, decision-making and communication, and environmental and sustainability practices) play a more significant role in determining the financial performance of a firm than external factors (e.g., market economic parameters, government policies & support, and competition). Second, we employed VOSViewer software to dissect the selected publications, including the creation of bibliometric co-word maps and the examination of bibliographic coupling among journals. The results yielded valuable insights into leading nations, notable journals, noteworthy studies, trending keywords, and prominent publications in this field. Moreover, our research emphasizes the multifaceted nature of financial performance-related factors, offering useful insights for future studies exploring the interplay between factors and the performance of manufacturing firms.

Introduction

In recent years, the "performance" of firms, particularly in manufacturing, has garnered significant attention from academics and industry practitioners [1,2,3,4,5]. Using relevant financial metrics to assess organizational success is paramount for various stakeholders [3]. This emphasis on performance measures has intensified competition, creating a more demanding atmosphere for management. Businesses recognize the important role of tracking and monitoring performance to remain competitive in a continuously evolving landscape [6, 7]. Consequently, institutional studies, especially in developing countries, have significantly focused on understanding factors affecting firm performance [8]. Numerous factors, both internal and external, influence an organization’s activities and practices, and ultimately its financial performance. Unlike external factors, which are beyond the management’s control and often economy-wide, internal factors can be actively managed to ensure a better firm’s performance [8]. Examples include demand and production factors, corporate social responsibility practices, corporate governance, and innovation strategies. On the other hand, external factors encompass macroeconomic factors, suppliers, competitors, political environment, and government regulations.

The significance of analyzing firm performance in light of external factors has grown significantly, particularly in the face of recent global challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war. The pandemic, for instance, caused immense financial and operational disruptions for manufacturers worldwide [9]. A 2020 study by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) surveyed 558 US member firms and found that over 78% anticipated negative financial impacts due to the pandemic’s uncertainty [9]. Early in 2020, the sudden outbreak sent shockwaves through global markets and economies, significantly impacting firm performance by disrupting supply chains and increasing costs [10, 11]. These impacts, along with the pandemic’s effect on investment thresholds and total revenue [12], led to adverse consequences for businesses, shareholders, investors, and decision-makers worldwide [13].

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine also had global repercussions, significantly impacting not only democracies but also the manufacturing industry. A recent study by Arndt et al. [14] estimated that the war will push an additional 27.2 and 22.3 million people into poverty and hunger, respectively, highlighting its devastating human cost [14]. The economic cost is also substantial, with the projected to cost 1% of global GDP in 2022, equivalent to around $1.5 trillion at purchasing power parity (PPP) [15]. Additionally, Liadze et al. [15] predicted the war will raise global inflation by almost 2% in 2022 and 1% in 2023, further squeezing household budgets and potentially impacting economic growth [15].

Adding to these challenges, the escalating US-Russia tensions over Ukraine have significantly disrupted global supply chains [16]. One key factor driving this disruption is the surge in oil prices, directly impacting production costs and consequently affecting firms’ financial performance. Energy prices, particularly oil and gas prices, significantly influence the global economy [17]. This confluence of factors makes it increasingly difficult for firms to achieve the financial performance necessary to satisfy their shareholders and stakeholders.

Although past studies have explored various factors affecting financial performance in the manufacturing industry, they often focus on either internal or external factors in isolation. This study aims to address this gap by systematically analyzing both internal and external factors influencing firm performance and compiling a comprehensive list of effective financial performance indicators. The global scope of the analyzed articles (over 65 countries) demonstrates the field's international appeal and highlights contributions from both developed and developing nations. Understanding the complex interplay of internal and external factors is crucial for sustainable firm growth and informed decision-making by managers and policymakers. Therefore, this study aims to identify key organizational and environmental factors that shape manufacturing firm performance, providing valuable knowledge for stakeholders across various sectors and regions.

Given the above-mentioned context, the systematic literature review addresses the following research questions: (1) What is the current volume of publications and emerging trends regarding factors influencing financial performance in the manufacturing industry? (2) Which country has the most publications on factors affecting financial performance in the manufacturing sector? (3) Which journals are the top publishers on factors affecting financial performance in the manufacturing sector? (4) How do factors influencing financial performance in the manufacturing industry differ between advanced and emerging economies? (5) What are the key factors affecting the financial performance of manufacturing firms?

To address these questions, we conducted an extensive examination of studies on the factors influencing financial performance in the manufacturing sector using the Scopus database. The insights gained will prove valuable to policymakers, managers, and practitioners in drafting strategies to improve firms’ financial performance. Furthermore, we employed bibliometric analysis techniques like citation analysis, co-citation analysis, and word mappings, employing the VOSViewer software to uncover recent trends in the relevant literature. This methodology, specifically, aids new researchers in identifying prominent publications, high-citation countries, prolific journals and articles, and research hotspots. In today's dynamic environment characterized by globalization, relaxed regulations, the COVID-19 pandemic, technological advancements, and financial crises like the Russia-Ukraine War, organizations face the challenge of meeting demanding performance requirements for sustained growth and fierce competition. This study's findings will equip managers with the knowledge needed to develop effective policies and strategies for organizational success.

The rest of the article is structured as follows: Sect. 2 outlines the methodology employed in the study; Sect. 3 presents the findings from the systematic review and bibliometric analysis; and lastly, Sect. 4 concludes the article and discusses directions for future research.

Methodology

Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is considered valuable for synthesizing and providing collective insights into existing research in a specific area [18]. The review process typically consists of three phases: (1) designing the review, (2) executing the review, and (3) disseminating the findings [18]. For a very mature topic where an accumulated body of research exists, there is a need for in-depth analysis and synthesis to gain further understanding [19]. This is particularly true in the manufacturing industry, where the abundance of scientific information can be overwhelming. To address this challenge of information overload and review existing literature, we employed bibliometrics, a branch of data science that utilizes bibliographic data and specific data mining techniques. It provides a novel approach to managing information overload and reviewing existing literature on a given subject. Bibliometrics involves the application of statistical and mathematical techniques to formal literature, including books, journal articles and other scholarly works [20]. The primary objective of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of research papers that explore the determinants of financial performance in the manufacturing sector. To achieve this, we collected journal articles from the Scopus repository (www.scopus.com). Although the Web of Science is often considered more well-known, it has been discovered that the Scopus database, launched by Elsevier in 2004, offers a larger social sciences database with a broader coverage of references dating back to 1996 [21]. Scopus seamlessly integrates Mendeley data and references, offering a broader subject coverage compared to Web of Science and open-access platforms, with its 20% wider scope.

Given that the field of factors affecting financial performance in the manufacturing industry is predominantly anchored in the finance/economics discipline, we determined that Elsevier's Scopus index database was the most suitable choice for our study. This decision was driven by the database's comprehensive coverage, particularly during the late 1990s when the finance/economics discipline experienced a significant expansion. The initial phase of this study involved formulating a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria to effectively retrieve the most relevant articles for the systematic literature mining process [22]. Figure 1 shows the literature mining process. This paper covers articles published in Scopus until the end of 2022. The data retrieval process involved a keyword search utilizing terms such as “determinant,” “factor,” “financial,” “performance,” “manufacturing,” “firm,” “company,” and “industry.” Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” were employed to refine the search. The exact search string used was as follows:

Fig. 1
figure 1

Source: Authors

The flowchart demonstrating the approach to literature sample collection.

Full size image

TITLE-ABS-KEY (determinant OR factor AND financial AND performance AND manufacturing AND firm OR company OR industry).

Our initial search yielded a total of 808 papers. However, after excluding conference papers, review papers, and book chapters, a total of 654 refined academic articles written in the English language were retained. This exclusion aimed to focus on peer-reviewed, published research directly related to our field of study. Conference proceedings often lack peer review and may not be fully developed, while review articles and book chapters may not offer the specific empirical data needed for this research.Usually, papers that are presented at conferences are often not regarded as "articles" as they are not peer reviewed or published. Moreover, not every review paper and book chapter were pertinent to our field of study. The primary screening process involved evaluating titles and abstracts, resulting in the identification of 458 articles that aligned with the research focus. These articles explored the link between various factors and the financial performance of manufacturing firms. Since the objective of this study is to uncover the elements impacting organizations' financial performance, only empirical articles were deemed suitable for inclusion. Empirical research involves the collection and analysis of data through experiments and observations rather than relying solely on theoretical frameworks. Applying these criteria, a total of 289 empirical papers were finally selected for the research.

This analysis focuses exclusively on relevant empirical literature published between 1987 and 2022 (inclusive). While aiming to capture the most recent research on organizational financial performance, publications from early 2023 were unavailable or not empirical in nature. This timeframe limitation ensures the study analyzes the most comprehensive and up-to-date research available at the time of the analysis.

Bibliometric analysis

Employing descriptive statistics, we analyzed publication patterns in the database, generating tables and graphs that identify trends related to financial performance determinants in manufacturing firms. These analyses included publication counts, top publishing nations, journals and authors, most-cited papers, and keyword evolution for trend analysis. To further strengthen the knowledge base, the author conducted citation and co-citation analyses. Citation analysis, which measures how often articles are referenced in other publications, identified the top nations, journals, and prominent papers in the field of determinants of financial performance in the manufacturing sector. Additionally, co-citation analysis, comparing publications cited together in a single document, allows for a deeper understanding of research connections. The more frequently two references are co-cited, the stronger the indication that they belong to the same school of thought, whether supporting or contradicting each other. The results of the bibliometric analysis (including citation and co-citation analysis) were presented in alignment with the research questions. This analysis revealed the top journals and countries contributing to research on financial performance determinants in manufacturing. The process of the bibliometric analysis is depicted in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Source: Authors

Content of the Bibliometric Analysis.

Full size image

Publication trend of prior studies

Following the filtering process, a total of 289 items were retained from a 35-year period (1987–2022), demonstrating remarkable growth in the field. To visualize this distribution, we employed a cumulative frequency graph (Fig. 3). Cumulative frequency graphs are valuable tools for visualizing the distribution of large datasets. This type of graph shows the running total of frequencies for each category, obtained by summing the frequency of each class interval with frequencies of all preceding intervals. Figure 3 illustrates the publication trend, indicating a substantial rise in interest in this research field. The fact that over 90% of the papers were published within the last decade (2011–2022) underscores the relevance of studying this field. Notably, the number of papers published experienced a dramatic increase after 2017 (69% of the samples), nearly 30 years after the commencement of research on determinants of financial performance. This observation indicates a broadening of the field and holds great promise for future advancements. Consequently, numerous scholars have been motivated to investigate various determinants of financial performance. Moreover, the year 2022 saw the highest number of publications (43), followed by 2021 and 2020. This overall upward trend in research output suggests a continuous increase, which is expected to persist in the near future.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Source: Authors

Publication trend of selected studies.

Full size image

Publication by countries

The study considered publications from 65 countries, highlighting the global popularity of research in the field. Table 1 presents the top 20 countries actively contributing to the literature on the factors influencing financial performance, with a minimum of five articles published. India leads the list with 36 articles (776 citations), followed by the United States (35 articles, 2208 citations). China and the United Kingdom tie for third place with 31 articles each (China: 618 citations, UK: 1498 citations). It is noteworthy that over half of the studies are conducted in developed economies.

Table 1 Top 20 countries by research publications.
Full size table

Interestingly, despite having the most publications worldwide, India has relatively low citation rates. The same is true in China, where 31 papers have been published with 618 citations. In contrast, the US and the UK, with 35 and 31 published papers, respectively, have much higher citation rates, with 2208 and 1498 citations, respectively. This unequivocally demonstrates a preference among academics and researchers to cite works from the aforementioned countries, possibly influenced by the reputation and impact factor of the top-ranked US/UK journals. Although China and India prioritize quantity in terms of publications, the US and UK prioritize the impact factor and quality of journals where research is published. This trend further translates into higher citation rates for US and UK authors, leading to a widening global citation gap observed across multiple disciplines. Researchers argue that this disparity and lack of diversity in scientific knowledge dissemination can hinder the spread of information and the emergence of new ideas.

Keyword occurrence using VOSViewer

The main keywords found in the examined literature were visually mapped using the VOS viewer. Through keyword occurrence analysis, we identified the most popular study subjects and their interrelationships, similar to the approach of Qing et al. [23]. Their study applied this method to identify the hot spot of research in the field of green technology innovation and financial performance over time. To achieve our goal of identifying research hotspots in the performance of the manufacturing industry over time, corresponding with the first research question, we adopted their keyword co-occurrence analysis strategy. Figure 4 (threshold: 5 co-occurrences, displayed keywords: 40) presents the keyword occurrence map, focusing on two aspects: the frequency of keyword occurrence and their changing popularity over time. In the map, the size of a node symbolizes how frequently a specific word appears, while the distance between two nodes shows the frequency of their co-occurrence. Furthermore, the size of the circles and labels on the example items indicate the weight of each item; the greater the weight, the larger the label and circle. The colors used in the map correspond to keywords, helping identify clusters of phrases that commonly appear together.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Source: Authors based on VOSViewer. Note: Based on the analysis of 1366 keywords, 40 keywords with at least five occurrences were identified. Dominant keywords in the co-occurrence analysis include “manufacturing” with 79 occurrences, “financial performance” with 77 occurrences, “firm performance” with 29 occurrences, “innovation” with 24 occurrences, and “sustainability” with 26 occurrences

Network visualization co-occurrence map with 40 keywords having at least five occurrences in articles published from 1987 to 2022.

Full size image

Within the cluster, the keyword ‘manufacture’ appears 26 times and is closely linked to the keyword 'innovation,' which has 25 occurrences within the same cluster. There are seven occurrences of the keyword 'China,' indicating the country's growing research interest in the manufacturing sector. In cluster three, the keyword 'profitability' is strongly associated with CSR and sustainability. Another significant area of interest is Industry 4.0, which demonstrates a strong connection to financial performance. The keyword analysis underscores the robust relationship between financial performance and manufacturing firms. Additionally, the implications for innovation and firm performance have garnered substantial attention in recent years, further highlighting their importance as crucial research areas.

Performing a co-occurrence keyword analysis not only provides valuable insights into existing research topics but also helps identify emerging research topics in the field and its related disciplines. The light green and yellow shades in Fig. 5 can be used to identify these emerging themes. The themes that have gained popularity over the past years based on frequency are sustainable development (15 occurrences), sustainability (11 occurrences), supply chain management (10 occurrences), corporate social responsibility (8 occurrences) Industry 4.0 (7 occurrences), industrial development (6 occurrences), and environmental performance (5 occurrences). These findings align with the growing focus on the role of sustainable development in influencing the financial performance of manufacturing organizations [24,25,26,27,28]. Furthermore, research indicates that government policies play a substantial role in determining a company's size and technical resources. Notably, [24] contribute to this subject by examining the causal linkages between organizational sustainability abilities and government policies. It is increasingly recognized that relying on financial performance indicators is inadequate for assessing a company's success. Sustainability practices are now considered crucial factors, with sustainable design, regulations and guidelines, and waste management identified as the three most significant elements influencing a company’s potential for sustainable growth [25].

Fig. 5
figure 5

Source: Authors. Note: Minimum co-occurrence threshold: 5; Keywords displayed: 40

Overlay visualization co-occurrence maps for articles published from 1987 to 2022.

Full size image

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a distinct subject that has attracted significant attention in the literature [29,30,31,32]. In developed and developing nations, CSR is seen as an important determinant of financial performance, as evidenced by its significant positive relationship with the expansion of manufacturing industry sales [32]. Additionally, recent research has also investigated the impact of the Industrial 4th Revolution on firm performance [1, 33,34,35]. For example, [33] highlights how Industry 4.0 enhances the potential returns for businesses and provides them with a deeper understanding of the financial implications associated with its implementation.

Publication by subject areas and journals

Next, we describe the prominent journal publications focused on the financial determinants of the manufacturing industry. For our bibliometric analysis, a wide range of papers from 188 journals were considered. Table 2 presents the top publishing journals in this area. Furthermore, these published articles cover a diverse array of disciplines, including Business, Management and Accounting (205), Economics, Econometrics and Finance (81), Engineering (55), Social Sciences (53), Decision Sciences (49), Environmental Science (40), Computer Science (33), Energy (31), Arts and Humanities (10), Mathematics (7), Agricultural and Biological Sciences (4), Multidisciplinary (4), Materials Science (3), Medicine (3), Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (3), Psychology (3), Chemical Engineering (2), and Physics and Astronomy (1) (Fig. 6).

Table 2 Top 20 high-impact journals for research in determinants of financial performance in the manufacturing industry.
Full size table
Fig. 6
figure 6

Scopus analysis of the number of articles by subject area

Full size image

The Strategic Management Journal, published by Wiley, stands out as the most influential journal in terms of citation impact, with a total of 860 citations related to the determinants of financial performance in the manufacturing industry. Although they have published only two articles related to the themes of this study, they have received the highest number of citations from other researchers. Taking the second spot is the Journal of Business Research, with 848 citations, followed by the International Journal of Production Economics (510 citations) and the International Journal of Operations and Production Management (420 citations).

In addition to the citation analysis findings presented in Table 2, Fig. 7 illustrates the results of the journal bibliographic coupling analysis. This analysis examines how publications with similar content are interconnected and serve a common purpose [36]. Figure 6, generated using VOSViewer, shows the outcomes of this analysis. Publications with similar research themes are grouped by color, and the connections between them indicate how they reference and cite one another. As the relationship between publications strengthens, the groups move towards one another. A total of forty-six journals were found to be interconnected, forming five clusters and a total of 490 links. Notably, the journal “Sustainability,” published by MDPI in Switzerland, ranked first with 17 documents and 306 citations, demonstrating a strong link strength of 370. Among the journals, the International Journal of Production Economics, published by Elsevier in the Netherlands, had the highest number of links. It featured a total of ten documents, 510 citations, 41 links, and an impressive link strength of 482.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Source: Authors based on VOSViewer

Scopus articles-based network diagram showing the bibliographic coupling of 46 journals.

Full size image

Prominent articles

Bibliometric evaluation, combined with our comprehensive database, allows us to identify research articles that have made a significant impact on the field or subject of study. Citation analysis plays a vital role in assessing the frequency with which a particular research article has been referenced or cited in subsequent works. The number of citations received by an article is often considered an indicator of its quality and influence within the scholarly community. In Table 3, we present the top 20 papers that have received the highest number of citations, representing their popularity and influence within the academic community. The number of citations an article receives serves as an indicator of its level of recognition. Additionally, the reputation and impact factor of the journal in which the article is published also plays a role in the number of citations it garners. Journals with a higher impact factor tend to attract more citations, reflecting their quality and significance in the field. Citation analysis greatly facilitates the task of identifying key papers for researchers, allowing them to navigate the scholarly landscape more effectively.

Table 3 Top 20 highly cited articles in the manufacturing sector (1987–2022).
Full size table

The first article, authored by Saeidi et al. [37], has received 757 Scopus citations. Their study highlights that CSR enhances business financial performance by strengthening credibility, competitive edge, and customer satisfaction. The second article by Powell [38] had 584 Scopus citations and revealed that supernormal profits can be generated regardless of strategic variables, traditional industries, or organizational alignments with the environment and internal structure. Morgan et al. [39] contribute to the understanding of export venture operations by highlighting the significant impact of properly implementing planned exporting market tactics on financial success. The authors emphasize the importance of marketing competencies in achieving this outcome. Empirical research conducted by Pearce et al. [40] involving 97 manufacturing firms with an average yearly sales volume of $20 million demonstrates a strong correlation between financial performance and planning formality. Other notable articles in the list address various important topics. Demirbag et al. [41] found that Total Quality Management (TQM) practices have a significant positive link with non-financial performance in SMEs but minimal impact on their financial success. Vázquez-Bustelo et al. [42] emphasized that the full utilization of agile manufacturing methodologies encourages manufacturing core competitiveness in turbulent situations by enhancing business operations, market performance, and financial performance. Tracey et al. [43] observed a strong relationship between Supply Chain Management (SCM) expertise and corporate success. Leonidou et al. [44] noted that adopting a green company strategy can create a competitive advantage, especially in highly regulated, dynamic, and competitive markets. This advantage contributes to superior market and financial outcomes. Centobelli et al. [45] demonstrated that both innovation and leanness significantly enhance financial and environmental performance in firms. Lee et al. [46] found that carbon emissions considerably reduce firm value. Gosselin [48] stressed the need for developing a theory explaining how businesses can utilize their performance measurement system to improve performance.

Furthermore, Koumanakos [47] revealed that as the level of inventory held by a company increases, its rate of return decreases. In terms of innovation capability, Kafetzopoulos and Psomas [51] found that although it may not have a direct influence on the financial outcomes of manufacturing enterprises, it does play an indirect role through the mediator of operating efficiency. The beneficial impact of intellectual capital on a company’s economic health and sustained growth was emphasized by Xu and Wang [49]. Gaur et al. [50] demonstrated that inter-functional collaboration and customer orientation, two sub-dimensions of market orientation, positively correlate with manufacturing performance. However, competitor orientation does not enhance manufacturing performance, according to their findings.

According to a study by Rehman et al. [53], green manufacturing techniques have a considerable influence on organizational performance in the Indian manufacturing sector. Tung et al. [54] showed that performance and staff-related outcomes, two aspects of Performance Measurement System (PMS) efficacy, are correlated with the implementation of multidimensional performance measurements. Maroufkhani et al. [52] revealed that the implementation of big data analytics has a significant positive effect on SMEs’ marketing and financial performance. Ghosh [56] explored the impact of board size on company success and observed that larger boards tend to have a dampening effect when evaluating a company's success using accounting or market-based parameters. Heredia Pérez et al. [55] highlighted that companies with a high perception of financial limitations are inclined to focus on creating marketing breakthroughs to enhance manufacturing efficiency, whereas companies with a lower perception of financial constraints allocate more resources to process innovation and innovation activities, resulting in substantial improvement in market performance.

A brief overview of determinants of financial performance in manufacturing literature

The crucial role of financial performance in a company’s long-term viability has attracted considerable scholarly attention [57, 58]. It serves as a gauge of a firm's growth potential, reflecting the effectiveness of its strategy, deployment, and execution in enhancing operations and practices [59]. Usually, a company's performance is evaluated through three key dimensions: financial outcomes, market outcomes, and shareholders’ return [60]. Analyzing a company's financial performance over time allows stakeholders, including businesses and investors, to assess its effectiveness in achieving strategic goals. This analysis provides valuable insights into a company's ability to generate profits, allocate resources, manage debt, and deliver value to shareholders.

Financial performance is measured by indicators like return on assets (ROA), return on investment (ROI), return on equity (ROE), and profit, among others. Market performance is assessed by market share and earning per share (EPS). Shareholder return is calculated by considering the annual change in stock price plus any dividends paid out [60]. Financial performance measurements, such as productivity and efficiency indicators, are frequently used in enterprises. Numerous accounting indicators, such as ROE, return on sales (ROS), ROA, ROI, and return on capital employed (ROCE), along with market-based metrics like market share and earnings per share (EPS), are frequently employed in the literature to assess the financial health of organizations (Fig. 8). Some studies also incorporate additional indicators such as sales, sales growth, and sales per employee, but these are relatively less common. In some cases, researchers utilized composite measures like Tobin's Q (Fig. 8), which combines accounting and market-based indicators (Table 4).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Source: Authors

Determinants and Measures of Financial Performance in Manufacturing Literature.

Full size image
Table 4 Top 30 most-cited articles by region and industry.
Full size table

The determinants of financial performance in manufacturing literature are classified into external and internal factors, which contribute to improving a firm's financial performance. One of the main objectives of the paper is to identify the most common internal and external elements that have an impact on the business excellence and financial performance of firms. Secondary research supports the notion that many internal and external factors significantly influence a firm's financial performance (Table 5).

Table 5 Determinants and financial performance measures in manufacturing literature.
Full size table

Impact of global events

COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated operational and financial challenges for manufacturers already grappling with economic disruptions [9]. A survey by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) found that over 78% of its 558 US member companies anticipated negative financial impacts from the pandemic [9].

Russia-Ukraine war

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shaken the foundations of global democracies and significantly impacted the industrial sector. The study by Arndt et al. [14] underscores this impact, estimating alarming rises in hunger (27.2 million) and poverty (22.3 million) due to the crisis. Additionally, Liadze et al. [15] estimate the war’s cost at 1% of global GDP in 2022, equivalent to roughly $1.5 trillion in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms. Furthermore, they project global inflation to rise by 2% and 1% in 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Conclusion, implications and future research direction

The bibliometric research demonstrates that between 1987 and 2022, the corpus of knowledge about the variables affecting financial outcomes in the manufacturing sector has expanded tremendously. Despite the global diversity of the literature, with contributions from 119 countries, studies from developed economies like the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Spain, Italy, and others remain dominant.

Several developing themes in the literature were identified through keyword map analysis, which can serve as potential research areas for scholars. Notable examples include sustainable development, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, industry 4.0, and industrial development. These areas present opportunities for scholars and researchers to explore in future studies. Among the 189 journals across various disciplines, Strategic Management Journal, published by Wiley, emerges as the most influential journal in terms of citation. It is followed by the Journal of Operations Management and the Academy of Management Journal.

This study’s analysis offers valuable insights for managers and researchers. For managers, the findings highlight various financial performance factors that can be leveraged to improve decision-making and potentially achieve high performance. The identified factors, as outlined in the SLR, can inform the development of management guidelines for strategic planning and real-world performance enhancement. For researchers, the SLR provides a comprehensive overview of recent research on various facets of organizational financial performance. By reviewing key research areas, this study aims to identify crucial gaps and potential avenues for further investigation. Ultimately, this SLR serves as a springboard for researchers defining an “initial concept” or area of interest for future exploration in organizational financial performance research.

While this work has made a significant contribution, like any other study, it also has inherent limitations. One notable drawback is the study’s use of only one database (Scopus) to compile the research findings. This approach may have missed out on relevant research from diverse data sources, potentially limiting the interpretation of the results. The study procedure and the associated qualitative approach also have their limitations. Although conducted rigorously, the SLR was restricted by time constraints and focused solely on English-language publications. This excludes potentially relevant research published in other languages. Additionally, the inclusion and exclusion criteria set for the analysis limited the selection of potentially relevant publications to those available in the Scopus database. Finally, the timeframe of the review (1987–2022) was chosen to focus on empirical studies discussing organizational financial performance. While no relevant papers published before 1987 were found, some articles published in early 2023 were unavailable or non-empirical and were therefore excluded. Despite these limitations, the study employed a thorough literature review methodology, resulting in a sizable body of literature that fairly represents the contributions and impact of the field.

Future evaluations could broaden the scope of relevant research by incorporating additional databases and potentially including non-empirical studies from the manufacturing sector within Scopus. Expanding the research focus beyond the manufacturing industry to encompass service, healthcare, agriculture, and banking & financial services could further enhance the comprehensiveness of future studies.

Availability of data and materials

All the data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Csiki O, Demeter K, Losonci D (2022) How to improve firm performance?—The role of production capabilities and routines. Int J Oper Prod Manag 43(13):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2022-0221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu L, Zhang J, Xu J, Wang Y (2022) Intellectual capital and financial performance of Chinese manufacturing SMEs: an analysis from the perspective of different industry types. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Manogna RL, Mishra AK (2022) Measuring financial performance of Indian manufacturing firms: application of decision tree algorithms. Meas Bus Excell 26(3):288–307. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2020-0073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pacheco L, Pedrinho B (2022) Determinants of the SMEs’ economical and financial performance: the role of foreign capital. Estud Gerenc 38(164):334–346. https://doi.org/10.18046/j.estger.2022.164.5104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wang S, Yu H, Wei M (2023) The effect of supply chain finance on sustainability performance: empirical analysis and fsQCA. J Bus Ind Mark. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-03-2022-0154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kennerley M, Neely A (2003) Measuring performance in a changing business environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 23:213–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Le Thi Kim N, Duvernay D, Le Thanh H (2021) Determinants of financial performance of listed firms manufacturing food products in Vietnam: regression analysis and Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition analysis. J Econ Dev 23(3):267–283. https://doi.org/10.1108/JED-09-2020-0130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dioha C, Mohammed NA, Okpanachi J (2018) Effect of firm characteristics on profitability of listed consumer goods companies in Nigeria 4:14–31

  9. NAM (2020) Manufacturers’ survey reveals current industry impact of COVID-19. https://www.nam.org/manufacturers-survey-reveals-current-industry-impact-of-covid-19-7411. Accessed 25 Jan 2024

  10. He H, Harris L (2020) The impact of Covid-19 pandemic on corporate social responsibility and marketing philosophy. J Bus Res 116:176–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.05.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ioannides D, Gyimóthy S (2020) The COVID-19 crisis as an opportunity for escaping the unsustainable global tourism path. Tour Geogr 22(3):624–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1763445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shen H, Fu M, Pan H, Yu Z, Chen Y (2020) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on firm performance. Emerg Mark Finance Trade 56(10):2213–2230. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2020.1785863

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Song HJ, Yeon J, Lee S (2021) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the U.S. restaurant industry. Int J Hosp Manag 92:102702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Arndt C, Diao X, Dorosh P, Pauw K, Thurlow J (2023) The Ukraine war and rising commodity prices: implications for developing countries. Glob Food Secur 36:100680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2023.100680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Liadze I, Macchiarelli C, Mortimer-Lee P, Sanchez Juanino P (2023) Economic costs of the Russia–Ukraine war. World Econ 46(4):874–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/twec.13336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghadge A, Wurtmann H, Seuring S (2020) Managing climate change risks in global supply chains: a review and research agenda. Int J Prod Res 58(1):44–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1629670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aliu F, Mulaj I, Hašková S (2023) Consequences of the Russia–Ukraine war: evidence from DAX, ATX, and FTSEMIB. Stud Econ Finance. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-12-2022-0555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14:207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Watson RT, Webster J (2020) Analysing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review a roadmap for release 2.0. J Decis Syst 29(3):129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1798591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pritchard A (1969) Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J Doc 25:348–349

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vieira ES, Gomes JA (2009) A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics, 81, 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-2178-0

  22. Davies HT, Crombie IK (1998) Getting to grips with systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Hosp Med (London, England 1998) 59(12):955–958

    Google Scholar 

  23. Qing L, Chun D, Ock YS, Dagestani AA, Ma X (2022) What myths about green technology innovation and financial performance’s relationship? A bibliometric analysis review. Economies 10(4):92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Khurana S, Luthra S, Haleem A, Kumar A, Mannan B (2022) Can sustainability be achieved through sustainable oriented innovation practices? Empirical evidence of micro, small and medium scale manufacturing enterprises. Sustain Dev 30(6):1591–1615. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kuo YC, Wu YM, Liu YX (2022) Identifying key factors for sustainable manufacturing and development. Rev Integr Bus Econ Res 11(1):30–50

    Google Scholar 

  26. Le TT, Nguyen TMA, Phan TTH (2019) Environmental management accounting and performance efficiency in the Vietnamese construction material industry-a managerial implication for sustainable development. Sustainability (Switzerland) 11(19):5152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Máté D, Oláh J, Erdei E, Estiyanti NM, Bács Z, Kovács S (2022) The impacts of sustainable industrial revolution (IR) on the profitability of Hungarian food companies. Front Sustain Food Syst 6:1034010. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2022.1034010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Teng X, Chang BG, Wu KS (2021) The role of financial flexibility on enterprise sustainable development during the COVID-19 crisis-a consideration of tangible assets. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13(3):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Masoud N, Vij A (2021) The effect of mandatory CSR disclosure on firms: empirical evidence from UAE. Int J Sustain Eng 14(3):378–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2020.1821405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Saeidi P, Robles LAA, Saeidi SP, Zamora MIV (2021) How does organizational leadership contribute to the firm performance through social responsibility strategies? Heliyon 7(7):e07672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Utami ES, Hasan M (2021) The role of corporate social responsibility on the relationship between financial performance and company value. J Asian Finance Econ Bus 8(3):1249–1256. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2021.vol8.no3.1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yannan D, Ahmed AAA, Kuo TH, Malik HA, Nassani AA, Haffar M, Suksatan W, Iramofu DPF (2022) Impact of CSR, innovation, and green investment on sales growth: new evidence from manufacturing industries of China and Saudi Arabia. Econ Res Ekonomska Istraživanja 35(1):4537–4556. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2021.2015610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen HL (2021) Impact of industry 4.0 on corporate financial performance: a moderated mediation model. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13(11):6069. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wen Y (2022) The macroreform of the electronics manufacturing industry under the industry 4.0 wave based on financial performance indicators. Mob Inf Syst 2022:6436112. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6436112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yu Y, Zhang JZ, Cao Y, Kazancoglu Y (2021) Intelligent transformation of the manufacturing industry for industry 4.0: seizing financial benefits from supply chain relationship capital through enterprise green management. Technol Forecast Soc Change 172:120999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jarneving B (2007) Bibliographic coupling and its application to research-front and other core documents. J Informet 1(4):287–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Saeidi SP, Sofian S, Saeidi P, Saeidi SP, Saaeidi SA (2015) How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. J Bus Res 68(2):341–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Powell TC (1992) Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strateg Manag J 13(2):119–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250130204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Morgan NA, Katsikeas CS, Vorhies DW (2012) Export marketing strategy implementation, export marketing capabilities, and export venture performance. J Acad Mark Sci 40(2):271–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0275-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pearce JA, Robbins DK, Robinson RB (1987) The impact of grand strategy and planning formality on financial performance. Strateg Manag J 8(2):125–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250080204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Demirbag M, Tatoglu E, Tekinkus M, Zaim S (2006) An analysis of the relationship between TQM implementation and organizational performance: evidence from Turkish SMEs. J Manuf Technol Manag 17(6):829–847. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410380610678828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Vázquez-Bustelo D, Avella L, Fernández E (2007) Agility drivers, enablers and outcomes: empirical test of an integrated agile manufacturing model. Int J Oper Prod Manag 27(12):1303–1332. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570710835633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tracey M, Lim JS, Vonderembse MA (2005) The impact of supply-chain management capabilities on business performance. Supply Chain Manag 10(3):179–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540510606232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Leonidou LC, Christodoulides P, Kyrgidou LP, Palihawadana D (2017) Internal drivers and performance consequences of small firm green business strategy: the moderating role of external forces. J Bus Ethics 140(3):585–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2670-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Centobelli P, Cerchione R, Singh R (2019) The impact of leanness and innovativeness on environmental and financial performance: insights from Indian SMEs. Int J Prod Econ 212:111–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lee KH, Min B, Yook KH (2015) The impacts of carbon (CO2) emissions and environmental research and development (R&D) investment on firm performance. Int J Prod Econ 167:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.05.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Koumanakos DP (2008) The effect of inventory management on firm performance. Int J Product Perform Manag 57(5):355–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400810881827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gosselin M (2005) An empirical study of performance measurement in manufacturing firms. Int J Product Perform Manag 54(5–6):419–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410400510604566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Xu J, Wang B (2018) Intellectual capital, financial performance and companies’ sustainable growth: evidence from the Korean manufacturing industry. Sustainability (Switzerland) 10(12):4651. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Gaur SS, Vasudevan H, Gaur AS (2011) Market orientation and manufacturing performance of Indian SMEs: moderating role of firm resources and environmental factors. Eur J Mark 45(7):1172–1193. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111137660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kafetzopoulos D, Psomas E (2015) The impact of innovation capability on the performance of manufacturing companies the Greek case. J Manuf Technol Manag 26(1):104–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Maroufkhani P, Tseng ML, Iranmanesh M, Ismail WKW, Khalid H (2020) Big data analytics adoption: determinants and performances among small to medium-sized enterprises. Int J Inf Manag 54:102190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Rehman MA, Seth D, Shrivastava RL (2016) Impact of green manufacturing practices on organisational performance in Indian context: an empirical study. J Clean Prod 137:427–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tung A, Baird K, Schoch HP (2011) Factors influencing the effectiveness of performance measurement systems. Int J Oper Prod Manag 31(12):1287–1310. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111187457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Heredia Pérez JA, Geldes C, Kunc MH, Flores A (2019) New approach to the innovation process in emerging economies: the manufacturing sector case in Chile and PERU. Technovation 79:35–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ghosh S (2006) Do board characteristics affect corporate performance? Firm-level evidence for India. Appl Econ Lett 13(7):435–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504850500398617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kaguri AW (2013) Relationship between firm characteristics and financial performance of life insurance companies in Kenya

  58. Kaguri AW (2013) Relationship between firm characteristics and financial performance of life insurance companies in Kenya. Research Repository of the University of Nairobi, Kenya. Available at, http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/63507

  59. Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard–measures that drive performance. Harv Bus Rev 70(1):71–79

    Google Scholar 

  60. Richard PJ, Devinney TM, Yip GS, Johnson G (2009) Measuring organizational performance: towards methodological best practice. J Manag. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lucas MT, Noordewier TG (2016) Environmental management practices and firm financial performance: the moderating effect of industry pollution-related factors. Int J Prod Econ 175:24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Glaister KW, Dincer O, Tatoglu E, Demirbag M, Zaim S (2008) A causal analysis of formal strategic planning and firm performance: evidence from an emerging country. Manag Decis 46(3):365–391. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740810863843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Low DR, Chapman RL, Sloan TR (2007) Inter-relationships between innovation and market orientation in SMEs. Manag Res News 30(12):878–891. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170710833321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bobillo AM, López-Iturriaga Felix F, Tejerina-Gaite F (2010) Firm performance and international diversification: the internal and external competitive advantages. Int Bus Rev 19(6):607–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Voulgaris F, Asteriou D, Agiomirgianakis G (2004) Size and determinants of capital structure in the Greek manufacturing sector. Int Rev Appl Econ 18(2):247–262. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269217042000186714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zhang D, Vigne SA (2021) The causal effect on firm performance of China’s financing–pollution emission reduction policy: firm-level evidence. J Environ Manag 279:111609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Lee S, Jung H (2016) The effects of corporate social responsibility on profitability: the moderating roles of differentiation and outside investment. Manag Decis 54(6):1383–1406. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-07-2015-0268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Palaniappan G (2017) Determinants of corporate financial performance relating to board characteristics of corporate governance in Indian manufacturing industry: an empirical study. Eur J Manag Bus Econ 26(1):67–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-07-2017-005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Egbunike CF, Okerekeoti CU (2018) Macroeconomic factors, firm characteristics and financial performance. Asian J Account Res 3(2):142–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-09-2018-0029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Wen H, Lee CC (2020) Impact of environmental labeling certification on firm performance: empirical evidence from China. J Clean Prod 255:120201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Liao T-J, Yu C-MJ (2012) Knowledge transfer, regulatory support, legitimacy, and financial performance: the case of foreign firms investing in China. J World Bus 47(1):114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2010.10.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Solakivi T, Töyli J, Engblom J, Ojala L (2011) Logistics outsourcing and company performance of SMEs: evidence from 223 firms operating in Finland. Strateg Outsourcing Int J 4(2):131–151. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538291111147982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Latan H, Chiappetta Jabbour CJ, Lopes de Sousa Jabbour AB, de Camargo Fiorini P, Foropon C (2020) Innovative efforts of ISO 9001-certified manufacturing firms: evidence of links between determinants of innovation, continuous innovation and firm performance. Int J Prod Econ 223:107526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.107526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Alkaraan F, Northcott D (2013) Strategic investment decision-making processes: the influence of contextual factors. Meditari Account Res 21(2):117–143. https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-09-2012-0031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Kazan H, Özer G, Çetin AT (2006) The effect of manufacturing strategies on financial performance. Meas Bus Excell 10(1):14–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040610652186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Junaid M, Zhang Q, Syed MW (2022) Effects of sustainable supply chain integration on green innovation and firm performance. Sustain Prod Consum 30:145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Sánchez AM, Pérez MP (2002) R&D project efficiency management in the Spanish industry. Int J Proj Manag 20(7):545–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00024-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Mostafiz MI, Sambasivan M, Goh SK (2019) The antecedents and the outcomes of foreign market knowledge accumulation—the dynamic managerial capability perspective. J Bus Ind Mark 34(4):902–920. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-09-2018-0263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Farooque M, Zhang A, Liu Y, Hartley JL (2022) Circular supply chain management: performance outcomes and the role of eco-industrial parks in China. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 157:102596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2021.102596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Moon H, Min D (2020) A DEA approach for evaluating the relationship between energy efficiency and financial performance for energy-intensive firms in Korea. J Clean Prod 255:120283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Voulgaris F, Lemonakis C (2014) Creating a business competitiveness index: an application to Greek manufacturing firms. J Transnatl Manag 19(3):191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475778.2014.929921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Kavalić M, Nikolić M, Radosav D, Stanisavljev S, Pečujlija M (2021) Influencing factors on knowledge management for organizational sustainability. Sustainability (Switzerland) 13(3):1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. De Castro JO, Chrisman JJ (1995) Order of market entry, competitive strategy, and financial performance. J Bus Res 33(2):165–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(94)00066-N

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Lin C, Chang CC (2015) The effect of technological diversification on organizational performance: an empirical study of S&P 500 manufacturing firms. Technol Forecast Soc Change 90(PB):575–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Losonci D, Demeter K (2013) Lean production and business performance: international empirical results. Compet Rev 23(3):218–233. https://doi.org/10.1108/10595421311319816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Kocmanová A, Dočekalová M (2012) Construction of the economic indicators of performance in relation to environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) factors. Acta Univ Agric Silvic Mendel Brun 60(4):195–206. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201260040195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Kocmanova A, Docekalova MP, Simanaviciene Z (2017) Corporate sustainability measurement and assessment of Czech manufacturing companies using a composite indicator. Eng Econ 28(1):88–100. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.28.1.15323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Acquaah M (2013) Management control systems, business strategy and performance: a comparative analysis of family and non-family businesses in a transition economy in sub-Saharan Africa. J Fam Bus Strat 4:131–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Obeidat SM (2017) An examination of the moderating effect of electronic-HRM on high-performance work practices and organisational performance link. Evid Based HRM 5(2):222–241. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-11-2015-0046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Tanikawa T, Kim S, Jung Y (2017) Top management team diversity and firm performance: exploring a function of age. Team Perform Manag 23(3–4):156–170. https://doi.org/10.1108/TPM-06-2016-0027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Phongpetra V, Johri LM (2011) Impact of business strategies of automobile manufacturers in Thailand. Int J Emerg Mark 6(1):17–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468801111104359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Solakivi T, Hofmann E, Töyli J, Ojala L (2018) The performance of logistics service providers and the logistics costs of shippers: a comparative study of Finland and Switzerland. Int J Log Res Appl 21(4):444–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2018.1439906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Dar IA, Mishra M (2020) Dimensional impact of social capital on financial performance of SMEs. J Entrep 29(1):38–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971355719893499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Solikhah B, Maulina U (2021) Factors influencing environment disclosure quality and the moderating role of corporate governance. Cogent Bus Manag 8(1):1876543. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1876543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Grozdic V, Maric B, Radišic M, Šebestová J, Lis M (2020) Capital investments and manufacturing firms’ performance: panel-data analysis. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12(4):1689. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Lee CY, Huang YC, Chang CC (2017) Factors influencing the alignment of technological diversification and firm performance. Manag Res Rev 40(4):451–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-03-2016-0071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Islam MM, Habes E, Karim A, Syed Agil SOB (2016) Quality certification and company performance—the newly developed country experience. J Bus Econ Manag 17(4):628–644. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2015.1110712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Yagi M, Managi S (2018) Decomposition analysis of corporate carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in Japan: integrating corporate environmental and financial performances. MPRA Paper 87891, University Library of Munich, Germany

  99. Das RC, Mishra CS, Rajib P (2018) Firm-specific parameters and earnings management: a study in the Indian context. Glob Bus Rev 19(5):1240–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918788748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Srinivasa Reddy K, Nangia VK, Agrawal R (2013) Corporate mergers and financial performance: a new assessment of Indian cases. Nankai Bus Rev Int 4(2):107–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/20408741311323326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Nguyen HTT, Van HV, Bartolacci F, Tran TQ (2018) The impact of government support on firm performance in Vietnam: new evidence from a dynamic approach. Asian Acad Manag J 23(2):101–123. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2018.23.2.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Herranz RE, Estévez PG, Oliva MADVY, Dé R (2017) Leveraging financial management performance of the Spanish aerospace manufacturing value chain. J Bus Econ Manag 18(5):1005–1022. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1357655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Madrid-Guijarro A, Auken HV, García-Pérez-de-Lema D (2007) An analysis of factors impacting performance of spanish manufacturing firms. J Small Bus Entrep 20(4):369–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2007.10593406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Pradhan D, Swain PK, Dash M (2018) Effect of management accounting techniques on supply chain and firm performance—an empirical study. Int J Mech Eng Technol 9(5):1049–1057

    Google Scholar 

  105. Todd B, Vinod K, Uma K (2006) Concurrent engineering teams II: performance consequences of usage. Team Perform Manag Int J 12:125–137. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527590610687893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Garcés-Ayerbe C, Rivera-Torres P, Murillo-Luna JL, Suárez-Gálvez C (2022) Does it pay more to be green in family firms than in non-family firms? RMS 16(5):1365–1386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00475-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Fujianti L, Satria I (2020) Firm size, profitability, leverage as determinants of audit report lag: evidence from Indonesia. Int J Financ Res 11(2):61. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v11n2p61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Zhang X (2014) The impacts of intellectual capital of China’s public pharmaceutical company on company’s performance. J Chem Pharm Res 6(4):999–1004

    Google Scholar 

  109. Endiana IDM, Dicriyani NLGM, Adiyadnya MSP, Putra IPMJS (2020) The effect of green accounting on corporate sustainability and financial performance. J Asian Finance Econ Bus 7(12):731–738. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no12.731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Khan U, Zhang Y, Salik M (2020) The financial performance of Korean manufacturing SMEs: influence of human resources management. J Asian Finance Econ Bus 7(8):599–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Cho E, Park H (2015) Is CSR really profitable? Evidence from Korea. J Appl Bus Res 31(6):2167–2185. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v31i6.9474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Zhang G, Lee Y (2021) Determinants of financial performance in China’s intelligent manufacturing industry: innovation and liquidity. Int J Financ Stud 9(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs9010015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Zhang D (2021) Is export tax rebate a quality signal to determine firms’ capital structure? A financial intermediation perspective. Research in International Business and Finance, 55, 101317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2020.101317

  114. Nanda S, Panda AK (2019) A quantile regression approach to trail financial performance of manufacturing firms. J Appl Acc Res 20(3):290–310. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2018-0091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Sobhani M, Malarvizhi CA, Al-Mamun A, Jeyashree S (2013) Strategic procurement and financial performance of Iranian manufacturing companies. Asian Soc Sci 10(1):250–256. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n1p250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Li X, Hamblin DJ (2001) Developing a multivariate manufacturing company performance model: effects of technology and investment on two-dimensional firm performance. Int J Prod Res 39(13):2895–2912. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540110052544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Elking I, Cantor DE, Hofer C (2022) The impact of supplier innovation on buyer innovation and the moderating effects of geographic distance, financial interdependence and technical similarity. J Strateg Manag 15(4):571–589. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-07-2021-0139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Hoskins JD, Carson SJ (2022) Industry conditions, market share, and the firm’s ability to derive business-line profitability from diverse technological portfolios. J Bus Res 149:178–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.05.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Ebabu Engidaw A (2021) The effect of external factors on industry performance: the case of Lalibela City micro and small enterprises, Ethiopia. J Innov Entrep 10(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-021-00147-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Aripin N, Abdulmumuni O (2020) Financial leverage and financial performance of Nigerian manufacturing firms. Int J Supply Chain Manag 9(4):607–614

    Google Scholar 

  121. Pacheco L (2017) Financial structure effects on export intensity and diversification: the case of Portuguese industrial firms. Int J Glob Small Bus 9(4):252–276. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGSB.2017.089900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Solakivi T, Laari S, Töyli J, Ojala L (2017) Firm performance and environmental collaboration in manufacturing. Int J Bus Syst Res 11(4):365–392. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBSR.2017.087101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Alibabaee G, Khanmohammadi MH (2016) Economic variables and financial performance of the company. Int Bus Manag 10(19):4561–4566

    Google Scholar 

  124. Siwadi P, Miruka C, Ogutu FA (2015) The impact of corporate governance on firm performance in the Zimbabwean manufacturing sector. Corp Ownersh Control 12(4Cont7):779–790. https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv12i4c7p8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Ancarani A, Di Mauro C, Gitto S (2022) An empirical analysis of the profitability of backshoring initiatives to Europe. J Manuf Technol Manag 33(8):1385–1406. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2022-0101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Ju M, Gao GY (2022) Performance implication of exploration and exploitation in foreign markets: the role of marketing capability and operation flexibility. Int Mark Rev 39(4):785–810. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2021-0024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Fauzi TH (2022) The effect of environmental performance on firm value with mediating role of financial performance in manufacturing companies in Indonesia. Acad J Interdiscip Stud 11(3):256–265. https://doi.org/10.36941/AJIS-2022-0071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Thimm H, Rasmussen KB (2022) A multi-perspective exploration of the environmental website disclosure in global manufacturing. Bus Strateg Environ. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Marjan Y, Hasanah U, Muliatie YE, Usman I (2022) Logistic capability and total quality management practice on SME’s performance. J Distrib Sci 20(7):97–105. https://doi.org/10.15722/jds.20.07.202207.97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Jeet V, Aspal P (2021) Empirical relationship of company’s intangible resources and corporate financial performance-a panel data approach. Univ J Account Finance 9:1533–1543. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujaf.2021.090630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Tantawy AA, Elaasi S, Elshawadfy M (2021) Did the environmental jolt matter? Corporate entrepreneurship and firm financial performance in Egypt. J Entrep Emerg Econ 13(5):1326–1347. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-08-2020-0301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Hassan Y, Roychowdhury S (2019) Nexus between sustainability management and financial performance-study on manufacturing firms from global emerging market. Int J Environ Workplace Employ. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWE.2019.10025138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Niromi A (2013) The impact of board of director size and managing director duality on market value of firms: evidences from China stock exchange. World Appl Sci J 28(9):1247–1251. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.28.09.877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Ghosh S (2007) Board diligence, director business and corporate governance. Corp Board Role Dut Compos 3(3):13–22. https://doi.org/10.22495/cbv3i3art2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Dobson S, Gerrard B (1991) The financial performance of the leeds engineering sector. Urban Stud 28(1):53–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989120080041

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Executive Editor (Dr. Ghada Refaat el Said), Associate Editor (Dr. Felicia Hui Ling Chong) and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on the earlier version of the draft. We believe that the quality of the paper has substantially improved after addressing their recommended revision.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia

    Agnus Baby, Md Aslam Mia & Anwar Allah Pitchay

Authors
  1. Agnus Baby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Md Aslam Mia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anwar Allah Pitchay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have contributed equally.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md Aslam Mia.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All the authors have agreed to publish the paper.

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baby, A., Mia, M.A. & Pitchay, A.A. A systematic review of financial performance in the manufacturing industry. Futur Bus J 10, 70 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00353-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00353-1

Keywords

JEL Classification