The Impact of Sustainability on the Financial Performance of Jordanian Islamic Banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study looked into the effect of the three dimensions of sustainability (economic dimension, environmental dimension, and social dimension) on the financial performance of Jordanian Islamic banks represented by (return on assets, return on equity, and earnings per share) during the period (2008-2014). The study sample contained two main Islamic banks in Jordan, namely: Jordan Islamic Bank and Arab Islamic Bank. Required data was collected from the annual reports, financial statements, sustainability reports, and social responsibility reports of the Jordanian Islamic banks from (2008-2014). Items for the dimensions of sustainability were determined, and their level of exercise was measured, by analyzing the content of these reports (content analysis), as well as the financial indicators of financial performance, which have been extracted from the financial statements of the surveyed banks. The study results have shown the presence of a statistically significant effect of the dimensions of sustainability on the financial performance measured by ROA and EPS in the Jordanian Islamic banks. However, there was no statistically significant effect of the dimensions of sustainability on the financial performance as measured by ROE in those banks. Finally, the study has encouraged Islamic banks to adopt a rational and prudent investment and financial policies, make proper operational decisions to generate revenue, maximize profits, and achieve shareholder objectives, issue sustainability reports to discover if goals and activities are compatible to the goals and interests of society and the environment, and increase their interest in sustainability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".