The Impact of Working Capital Management on Firm Profitability: Empirical Evidence from the Polish Listed Firms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between working capital and firm profitability for a sample of 719 Polish listed firms over the period of 2007–2016. The scarcity of empirical evidence for emerging economies and the importance of working capital efficiency motivate the research on the working capital–financial performance relationship. The paper adopts a quantitative approach using different panel data techniques (ordinary least squares, fixed effects, and panel-corrected standard errors models). The empirical results report an inverted U-shape relationship between working capital level and firm profitability, meaning that working capital has a positive effect on the profitability of Polish firms to a break-even point (optimum level). After the break-even point, working capital starts to negatively affect firm profitability. The study brings theoretical and practical contributions. It extends and complements the literature on the field by highlighting new evidence on the non-linear interrelation between working capital management (WCM) and corporate performance in Poland. From the practitioners’ perspective, the results highlight the importance of WCM for firm profitability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".