energies
Article
Determinants of the Corporate Financing Structure in the
Energy and Mining Sectors; A Comparative Analysis Based on
the Example of Selected EU Countries for 2012–2020
Jacek Barburski * and Artur Hołda *
Citation: Barburski, J.; Hołda, A.
Determinants of the Corporate
Financing Structure in the Energy
and Mining Sectors; A Comparative
Analysis Based on the Example of
Selected EU Countries for 2012–2020.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en16124692
Academic Editor: Donato Morea
Received: 28 February 2023
Revised: 6 June 2023
Accepted: 8 June 2023
Published: 13 June 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2023, 16, 4692. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16124692
Department of Accounting, Cracow University of Economics, 31-510 Kraków, Poland
* Correspondence: barbursj@uek.krakow.pl (J.B.); aholda@uek.krakow.pl (A.H.)
Abstract: The main aim of the paper is to examine the interdependence of corporate financing
structure on selected determinants in the energy and mining sectors of the economy. In addition,
a comparison of the results between these economic sectors is made. In order to increase the
representativeness of the sample, countries from both the “old” European Union (Germany, France,
Great Britain, Spain, Italy, and Sweden) and newly admitted countries (Poland, the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and Bulgaria) were included in the study. The research used data from
the Orbis database for 2012–2020. A one-factor linear panel model was used to verify the hypotheses.
The research partly confirmed the hypotheses. A negative relationship between the financing structure
and profitability in both analysed sections was clearly established. The second determinant whose
influence on the financing structure in both sections was found to be unambiguous was the ratio
of current liabilities to current assets. However, this influence was positive. Another determinant
whose influence on the financing structure was confirmed to be unequivocal and positive in nature
was the size of the company. This occurred only in the energy sector. The research revealed that other
determinants, such as asset structure, interest, and noninterest tax shields, also affect the financing
structure of companies, but the statistical significance of these relationships is ambiguous.
Keywords: capital structure; determinants of capital structure; managing the financing structure;
financing of the energy sector; financing of the mining sector; panel model
1. Introduction
There can be little doubt that energy plays a key role in any country’s economy.
Without an adequate energy supply, not only could other economic sectors not function,
but also development in other countries would be impossible.
As a result of steadily increasing global economic growth, the demand for energy
also increases. On the other hand, hitherto energy generation technologies based to an
exceptionally large extent on fossil fuels (fossil energy carriers) cause worry and progressive
climate change through high CO2 emissions. Undoubtedly, these changes, together with
environmental degradation, pose a grave threat to the world. Hence, the energy sector
is attracting increasing interest, and various initiatives and actions have been taken for
many years to enable a profound energy transformation, the most important of which are
identified below.
The first initiative in the fight against climate change was the signing of an inter-
national agreement in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change–UNFCCC or FCCC), which set out the principles for international
cooperation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming. This
was followed up by the United Nations Conferences on Climate Change, the so-called
Conferences of the Parties (COP), which have been held annually since 1995. The most
significant events include the signing of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Frame-
work Convention on Climate Change (COP 3) on 11 December 1997 and its subsequent
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 2 of 29

ratification by 141 countries (COP 11) and entry into force on 16 February 2005. It expired on
31 December 2012; however, the European Commission proposed a new treaty in the form
of an amendment dubbed the ‘Doha amendment’ to the Kyoto Treaty on 6 November 2013.
Another particularly important event was the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change in Paris [1], where on 12 December 2015, 195 countries agreed to adopt
a final global agreement known as the Paris Agreement, under which emissions were to
be reduced as part of the way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this way, a global
compromise was reached for the first time in the framework of climate change mitigation.
In the document, the parties agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions ‘as soon as possible’
and assured that they would make every effort to keep global warming significantly below
the 2 ◦ C threshold.
However, at the recent climate change conference in Glasgow [2], China and the US,
the largest consumer and producer of fossil fuels, respectively, together with India, decided
that, in the context of coal use, the term phase out should be changed to phase down.
In addition, the energy policy of EU countries that has been in place for several years
has led to the creation and adoption, in 2020, of the European Green Deal [3], which calls
for a more efficient use of resources through a transition to a clean, ‘closed-loop’ economy,
the combating of biodiversity loss, and the reduction of pollution levels.
As part of the European Green Deal, the EU’s ‘Fit for 55’ climate regulation package
was developed, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 2030 by at least
55% compared to 1990 levels and achieve climate neutrality by 2050 [4]. The package
comprises a set of proposals for 13 interlinked pieces of legislation, which became part of
the new European legal order with the adoption of the EU Climate Law. It must be added
that ‘Fit for 55’ is not yet binding law and refers to a transitional period leading ultimately
to climate neutrality across the EU by 2050.
Based on a detailed analysis and assessment of documents and assumptions intro-
ducing climate change worldwide, it should be noted that EU countries have proposed
to adopt the most rigorous action plan in this regard, consisting of a transition to ‘green
energy’ in the shortest possible period.
The ‘Fit for 55’ package is a tool that could, however, lead to a huge impoverishment of
EU citizens. The proposal contains very ‘aggressive directives and regulations’ that include
various types of taxation, charges, penalties, injunctions, and prohibitions for nonfulfilment
of the provisions adopted by individual EU countries. The proposed changes should
therefore be re-examined with a view to somewhat softening the proposed changes and, in
particular, lengthening the time taken to reach the targets set so that the economies of the
individual countries are able to bear the burden of the energy transition in the first place.
Energy generation is based on different technologies using renewable and nonrenew-
able sources. The latter mainly include fossil fuels, such as coal and lignite, oil, and natural
gas. Both previously and currently, they are the primary media for energy generation. It is
estimated that approximately 37% of global electricity comes from coal alone. Taking this
into account, the energy sector is highly dependent on the mining sector.
The current energy transition is bound to require major changes in the asset and
liability structures and equity structure of energy companies and massive investments in
each country. These changes will consequently affect companies’ choices of financing. The
main objective of the choice should be to search for optimal solutions regarding sourcing
short- and long-term financing in such a way as to ensure the stability of financing and
minimise the cost of raising capital.
Decisions concerning the formation of the financing structure of enterprises constitute
one of the most important areas of modern corporate management. They are the subject of
much analysis and research. Both theoretical and empirical work recognise a wide range
of different determinants of corporate financing. However, not all sectors are sufficiently
studied. The energy and mining industries are two such understudied ones. There is also a
lack of comparative research, both between sectors and countries.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 3 of 29

This paper consists of four parts. The first presents a review of the relevant literature
and research into capital structure theory as well as the determinants of corporate finance,
with a strong focus on the energy and mining sectors. The second part describes the
objectives, scope of the study, research hypotheses, and characteristics of the data. The
third part presents the model’s construction and the research methodology. The last part
presents the results of empirical research for the selected EU countries.

2. Overview of Main Theories of and Research into Capital Structure Formation in

an Enterprise
One of the key issues in corporate financial management involves the shaping of the
relationship between the sources of financing raised by the company. However, in empirical
studies, instead of financing sources, authors more often use the concept of capital sources,
which forms a capital structure corresponding to the sources. It should also be emphasised
that these concepts are variously interpreted and, consequently, research can be conducted
from different points of view.
Based on a literature review, several approaches to defining them can be distinguished.
The broadest approach considers the entire structure of liabilities and shareholders’ equity
on a company’s balance sheet, commonly referred to as sources of finance (sources of
capital are then the same as sources of financing), as the sources of capital (financing) from
which the capital structure directly derives. The leading proponent of this approach is
Masulis [5], according to whom the capital structure includes not only financial instruments
sold through public and private issues or bank loans, but also trade liabilities, leasing
contracts, tax and pension liabilities, payroll liabilities, guarantees provided, and other
liabilities [6]. Supporters of such an understanding of the sources (structure) of capital
include Ross, Westerfield, and Jaffe [7] and Higgins [8].
According to a second approach, capital structure is viewed as the ratio of the value of
long-term debt to equity [9–11]. According to them, the structure (sources) of capital should
include only the so-called “permanent” financing, i.e., equity, preference capital, and long-
term (interest-bearing) debt [6]. In light of this interpretation, the so-called “permanence”
of financing should be the criterion used to determine the sources (structure) of capital.
In another approach, according to Brealey and Myers [12], the capital structure should
include only securities issued by companies, consisting of debt securities (e.g., bills and
bonds) and ownership securities (e.g., ordinary and preferred shares). It should be noted
that this approach ignores liabilities arising from borrowing secured in the banking sys-
tem [13]. Therefore, this approach to capital structure should be considered to be the
narrowest.
The basis for the fourth and most common approach to capital structure is a proper
understanding of debt and the main feature of capital, which is the payment of interest
on the debt incurred [14]. Considering this, a firm’s capital should include accumulated
equity and debt capital, which is composed of all interest-bearing liabilities incurred. In
this approach, debt capital should include not merely noninterest-bearing liabilities, such
as, e.g., trade payables, wages and salaries, duties, and taxes.
Of the above-mentioned approaches, this research adopts the broadest understanding
of capital structure, which is based on the entire structure of a company’s liabilities. In
justifying the above choice, it should be pointed out that there are certain problems in
obtaining the relevant data, e.g., companies’ nondisclosure of certain items in financial
statements or their aggregation, which would significantly limit the research sample.
It should be stated that capital structure theory is, on the one hand, of unique impor-
tance in financial theory, but on the other hand, it is very complex and covers numerous
aspects of a company’s activities. Among the many works providing an overview of exten-
sive empirical research into capital structure, one should point to the work by Harris and
Raviv [15] and the work by Nehrebecka, Białek-Jaworska and Dzik-Walczak [16].
The study of capital structure has a long history. The first attempts to describe the
relationship between financing structure and the cost of capital and goodwill were found
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 4 of 29

in the early 1950s in the work of Durand, who developed the net operating income (NOI)
theory, the net income (NI) theory and the trade-off theory.
A break-through for the later development of capital structure theory came with
the studies conducted by Modigliani and Miller [14]. The first ones concerned a tax-
free economy, while the second ones concerned an economy with taxes. Another model
developed by Miller showed that capital structure may, but does not have to, affect the
change in the market value of a company. It depends on the tax system in place and
the relationship between the different tax rates. Another example of an extension of the
Modigliani–Miller theory through the use of a noninterest tax shield is the model developed
by DeAngelo and Masulis [17], who showed that an increase in a company’s debt is not
necessarily accompanied by a reduction in the amount of income tax.
Modigliani and Miller’s theories, however, ignored the risk of insolvency and bankruptcy
that accompanies an increase in debt, which has been the subject of much criticism and led to
the development of the bankruptcy cost theory. The most prominent contributions involved
works by Baxter [18], Stiglitz [19], Kraus and Litzenberger [20], Scott [21] and Kim [22].
Under this theory, the optimal relationship between equity and debt is determined by
considering both the benefits and risks that arise from debt financing, while the substitution
of equity with debt (or vice versa) occurs until the maximum market value of the company
is achieved.
As stated by Kraus and Litzenberger [20], an increase in the expected cost of bankruptcy
diminishes a company’s tax shield. The bankruptcy cost theory of capital structure assumes
the existence of an optimal capital structure, which is the result of an appropriate proportion
between equity and debt capital. Its determination should consider both the tax benefits
and the costs of financial distress, i.e., indirect and direct bankruptcy costs associated with
debt financing. In an extension by Jensen and Meckling [23], the substitution theory also
includes agency costs.
According to the agency cost theory, the formation of a company’s capital structure is
affected by agency costs resulting from conflicts of interest between different stakeholder
groups (shareholders, creditors, management, employees, etc.). Research into this area was
initiated by Jensen and Meckling [23]. The agency cost theory indicates that in shaping the
capital structure, consideration should be given not only to the benefits of debt financing,
such as the tax shield effect, but also to the opportunities to reduce agency costs.
In the late 1970s, a new strand of capital structure theory emerged that was based on
assumptions of an imperfect market, considering the presence of information asymmetries.
Within this strand, two main approaches can be distinguished: the Pecking Order Theory
and the Signalling Theory.
The pecking order theory is a competing approach to the previously mentioned
substitution theory. It assumes significantly different criteria when shaping the capital
structure. According to this theory, internal sources of financing are preferred as a first
priority, followed, when necessary, by external financing–debt issuance first and equity
shares last. The signalling theory, on the other hand, assumes that changes in the capital
structure carry specific information about the financial health of the company, which
signals to investors’ insider information held by well-informed individuals. Investors tend
to positively perceive management’s decisions to increase debt based on the belief that
the company’s future financial standing will be favourable and will allow the company to
timely repay borrowed capital.
The second half of the 1980s witnessed the development of capital structure models
using features of corporate organisation theory. These include a theory based on product
and factor (resource) production interactions and a theory of competition for control of
the company. The theory based on interactions in the market for products and production
resources can be divided into two research streams. The first exploits the relationship
between a company’s capital structure and its strategy when it competes in the market
for products. On the other hand, the second area of research highlights the relationship
between a company’s capital structure and the characteristics of its products or production
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 5 of 29

resources. By contrast, the theory of competition for the acquisition of control of a company
focuses on the market value of the right to control the company, which depends on the
acquisition of various equity instruments.
In the context of the above theories, it is worth mentioning some of the key findings
of the research conducted by Frank and Goyal [24]. They found that profitable companies
reporting high profitability ratios tend to have lower leverage ratios, which is consistent
with the hierarchy of the theory of financing sources. In addition, large firms have higher
debt ratios, which is consistent with the substitution theory, and firms with significant
physical assets have higher leverage ratios, which is consistent with the substitution theory.
It should be noted that the main theories of capital structure were being developed
prior to the late 1980s. On the other hand, after the publication of the works of Myers [25]
and Myers and Majluf [26], the emphasis of further research was on explaining the reasons
why companies behave in a certain way when choosing their sources of financing. The
most extensive research involved studies looking for factors influencing capital (financing)
structure, and this research continues to this day. Additionally, although numerous studies
and models identify a large number of potential factors determining capital structure, as
Harris and Raviv [15] note, only a relatively small number of so-called “general principles”
have been identified. The empirical research conducted in this area points to the complexity
of this problem arising from the multiplicity of potential factors influencing the level of
corporate indebtedness and their interrelationships. Indeed, each financing structure is
unique and reflects the unique combination of a company’s circumstances. In addition,
the various factors influencing the structure have their own intensity, with some factors
being more important in a particular industry, while others may be more important in a
particular legal system or country. Corporate financing structures are also subject to change
over time to reflect economic developments.
Despite existing problems, further empirical research should seek to best map and
understand the economic reality in which decisions on the choice of specific sources of
finance are made. In particular, such research should focus on those determinants that are
relevant and examine their nature and significance in shaping the financing structure. On
the other hand, company management, in the absence of an optimisation account, should,
when making their financial decisions, determine and strive for a target financing structure
that, from an economic point of view, would be the best solution for them.
On the basis of the literature review, it can be concluded that important factors of a
microeconomic nature found in empirical studies include company size, its profitability
and profit volatility, type (structure) of assets, noninterest tax shields, industry and product
specificity, growth rate and development forecasts, cost and availability of capital and
business risk. Macroeconomic factors most commonly featured in research include the
tax system, inflation, capital market situation, interest rates, country-specific factors and
legal solutions. Due to the multitude of determinants featured in the research, only those
investigated in this paper will be discussed below.
Many studies show that the size of a company significantly affects the company’s
debt level. Both in theory and in practise, large companies tend to have a higher debt
ratio. One reason is believed to be that the ratio of bankruptcy costs (in the event of
liquidation) to a company’s market value is higher for small entities than for large ones.
In addition, large companies can more easily protect themselves against bankruptcy, e.g.,
by diversifying production. Thus, higher debt for large companies does not necessarily
indicate a higher probability of bankruptcy, and even if it occurs, its costs will be relatively
lower. Hence, the share of debt in the capital structure can be expected to increase with the
size of the entity [6,27,28]. This view is also supported by Martin, Cox and McMinn [29]
and Boquist and Moore [30], according to whom the use of leverage is dependent on the
size of the company.
Empirical research shows that the size of the enterprise is, in most cases, strongly
positively correlated with its leverage ratio [28]. Most studies confirm that large companies
are more leveraged than small ones. A positive relationship between the debt level and
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 6 of 29

company size has been shown by studies conducted by, e.g., Titman and Wessels [31],
Rajan and Zingales [32], Fama and French [33], Booth et al. [34], Gonenc [35], Bauer [36],
Jiraporn and Gleason [37], Berk [38], Antoniou et al. [39], Akhtar and Oliver [40], Psillaki
and Daskalakis [41], Črnigoj and Mramor [42], Avarmaa et al. [43], Hernádi and Ormos [44],
K˛edzior [45], Jõeveer [46] and Jaworski and Czerwonka [47]. However, some studies have
shown an opposite (negative) relationship between debt level and company size [24,48].
Another important factor shaping a company’s capital structure is the profitability of
the company, usually measured in terms of the profitability of assets or sales. The impact of
profitability on capital structure is confirmed, among others, by the pecking order theory. It
argues that high profitability contributes to lower indebtedness, as the company is then in a
better position to allocate its profit to financing new investment projects. Low-profitability
companies, on the other hand, are forced to take out loans [49]. The negative impact of
profitability on capital structure appears in the vast majority of studies. More profitable
companies made less use of debt, suggesting that the main source of financing for their
operations was their profit [31,32,35–45,47,50].
The opposite conclusion follows from the signalling theory, according to which com-
panies boasting high profitability and good financial health have high levels of debt. A
positive relationship between profitability and debt levels has been shown in studies con-
ducted by Berkman et al. [51] and Koralun-Bereźnicka [52]. The above discrepancies should
serve as a particular motivation for further research.
In terms of profitability, it is worth paying attention to the level of profits as well as
their volatility. As highlighted by some research authors themselves, the latter is among
the more important factors reflecting negatively on leverage [53]. Companies with high
earnings volatility will curb their debt financing because of the financial risks associated
with debt servicing [54]. Investors will also be less inclined to commit their funds to
these companies, especially in countries where lender protection is weak [55]. Significant
earnings or operating cash flow volatility also make it difficult to predict a company’s
financial position, especially its cash flows [45]. Such entities should therefore be more
cautious when drawing on external capital to reduce liquidity risk.
According to some theories of capital structure, in particular, the bankruptcy theory,
agency costs and signalling theories, capital structure depends on the structure of assets
available to the company. This thesis is justified on the grounds that different types of assets
provide different degrees of protection for creditors, who, depending on this structure, are
exposed to different degrees of loss in the event of a possible bankruptcy of the debtor. Long-
term assets, compared to current assets, generally provide better security for liabilities
and are less exposed to impairment. The ability to incur debt therefore depends to a
large extent on the values of those assets that can function as collateral. According to
the bankruptcy theory and agency costs theory, entities with a better ability to secure
debt will report a relatively higher proportion of debt in their capital structure [6]. The
possibility of increasing a company’s indebtedness, depending on the increase in the share
of long-term assets in total assets, is confirmed, inter alia, by Dietrich [56] and De Miguel
and Pindado [57]. Similar conclusions have also been drawn by: Rajan and Zingales [32],
Gonenc [35], Frank and Goyal [58], Berk [38], Gaud et al. [59], Antoniou et al. [39], Akhtar
and Oliver [40], Ghani and Bukhari [60], Avarmaa et al. [43], Hernádi and Ormos [44],
K˛edzior [61] and Berkman et al. [51].
However, in theories that focus on information asymmetry, i.e., the pecking order
theory or the signalling theory, the effect of asset type (structure) on capital structure is
different. From the point of view of these theories, a higher share of long-term assets in
the asset structure should be accompanied by a relatively lower level of debt, as evidenced
by studies conducted, inter alia, by Bauer [36], Psillaki and Daskalakis [41], Črnigoj and
Mramor [42], Jõeveer [46], Jaworski and Czerwonka [47] and Koralun-Bereźnicka [52].
A company’s capital structure can also be shaped by interest and noninterest tax
shields. Noninterest tax shields are ‘substitutes’ for interest tax shields and arise from the
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 7 of 29

occurrence of elements other than interest on borrowed credit that reduce the tax base. The
most significant elements are depreciation and investment allowances.
Tax theories of capital structure argue that the formation of capital structure is signifi-
cantly influenced by taxes that result from the specific tax system in place in a country. In
general, the incidence of corporate income taxes in the economy increases the profitability
of debt financing and, at the same time, increases a company’s market value. The higher
the tax shield, the greater its benefits should be. However, this is not always obvious
when considering not only corporate income taxes, but also personal taxes and noninterest
tax shields.
Considering noninterest tax shields and their impact on debt levels, the results of
existing studies vary the most in relation to other variables. Only a few studies confirm
a positive relationship (e.g., Jaworski and Czerwonka [47], Koralun-Bereźnicka [52] or a
negative one (e.g., Bauer [36]). In most studies, the nature of the impact of this variable
on the debt level is indeterminate and ambiguous (e.g., Gaud et al. [59], Mokhova and
Zinecker [62]).
Liquidity may also be a determinant of capital structure. On the one hand, companies
with higher liquidity may maintain a higher level of debt due to their ability to meet
their current obligations, in which case the relationship between liquidity and debt will
be positive. On the other hand, companies with high cash reserves may use them to
finance investments, including growth activities. In this case, the relationship will be
negative [63,64].
However, large companies boasting high liquidity and profits can maintain a conser-
vative capital structure and avoid debt. In turn, when the share of net profit in equity is
high, companies can decide to pay dividends. The dividend pay-out rate decreases when
most of the equity comes from the issue of shares [65].
According to numerous authors, classical capital structure theories can be a good point
of reference for analysing the capital structure of energy companies [66–69]. The risk of
excessive indebtedness for energy companies seems to be lower than for other business
entities [70]. It can also be concluded that, in this respect, companies belonging to the
mining and quarrying section follow suit. Firstly, the value of long-term assets is relatively
high in the above groups of companies, which provides a good form of loan collateral.
Secondly, the state is the dominant investor in them, which effectively limits financial risk.
In addition, the global demand for electricity continues to steadily grow.
In the world literature on the subject, research on the capital structure of enterprises
and its determinants has been conducted for many years. However, the energy sector, and
in particular the mining sector, has received little attention from researchers so far. Among
these studies, the following works should be mentioned: [51,66–79].

3. Aims and Scope of the Study, Research Hypotheses and Data Characteristics
The main aim of this paper is to analyse and evaluate corporate financing structures
in the energy and mining sectors in selected EU countries. The achievement of this aim is
served by subobjectives consisting of the identification and study of the impact of selected
microeconomic determinants of corporate financing structures. In particular, the relevance,
strength and direction of the impact of these factors will be examined.
Twelve EU countries were selected for the study and subsequently divided into two
study groups. The first group includes six countries, which are some of the strongest
economies in the old EU (Germany, France, the UK, Spain, Italy and Sweden). In turn, the
second group consists of the six most significant economies from the new EU countries
(Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria). The individual coun-
tries were selected in such a way that it was also possible to assess whether the conditions
of a given economic system affect the formation of companies’ financing structures.
In order to meet the objectives of the research and draw on the existing capital structure
theories in pertinent literature, the following research hypotheses were formulated:
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 8 of 29

• H1. The financing structure of the companies studied, as determined by the ratio of total
liabilities to total assets, depends significantly on the structure of such assets themselves, the
ratio of current liabilities to current assets, the size of the company, its profitability and the
interest and noninterest tax shield.

• H2. The share of total liabilities in total assets is positively correlated with the ratio of current
liabilities to current assets, with company size, and with the interest and noninterest tax shield.

• H3. The share of total liabilities in total assets is negatively correlated with the share of
long-term assets in total assets and with profitability.

Although research into the capital structure of companies and its determinants has
been ongoing for many years now, no unified theory has been developed in this area to
date. Compared to other sectors, this research in the energy and mining section looks
rather modest and therefore there is a need to expand and continue it. Therefore, it should
be emphasised that the analysis and assessment of the impact of specific factors on the
formation of the financing structure of energy and mining companies for a selected group
of EU countries carried out in the paper broaden this body of knowledge about this section.
In particular, the verification of the research hypotheses provided evidence on the relevance,
strength and direction of the impact of microeconomic determinants on corporate financing
structures in selected EU countries.
Furthermore, what is missing in the area of financing structures is a relevant compara-
tive analysis. The added value of the research undertaken in the paper includes, inter alia,
the comparative analysis in the area of financing structures and the determinants shaping
these structures, which was carried out between selected countries and sectors.
The research covered two economically related sections—electricity, gas, steam and
air conditioning supply (Subsequently called electricity supply) (classified as heading 04-D
under NACE Rev. 2) and mining and quarrying (02-B). To conduct the research, relevant
data were retrieved from the Orbis database for 2012–2020.
During stage one, all those companies for which the value of total assets reported in
2012 in each country totaled at least 100,000 euros were isolated for the research. In turn,
the second stage involved an analysis of the retrieved data, which resulted in the removal
of atypical (outlier) observations. These outlier observations accounted for approximately
5% of the individual variables. In addition, in some countries, a number of companies were
eliminated due to a lack of comprehensive data.
The research relied on financial statement data expressed in book values, mainly
because of the problems associated with valuing many financial categories, especially the
market value of debt, at market values. The use of book values is in many cases preferred
by managers deciding on the target capital structure.

4. Model Construction and Research Methodology

After an extensive analysis of relevant literature, the following panel model was
used to statistically describe the relationship between companies’ financing structures and
selected determinants (variables) [80]. (Panel data models allow the modelling of economic
processes on the basis of complex data (e.g., on companies) in cross-sectional and temporal
terms. They make it possible to account for diverse objects by introducing individual or
temporal effects when the market environment changes. They also provide more profound
information, e.g., by comparison with cross-sectional models, they usually result in reduced
collinearity between explanatory variables, provide more ‘degrees of freedom’ and allow
the introduction of additional variables—artificial or random.)

yit = αi + xit × β + uit ; for i = 1, . . . , N; t = 1, . . . , T (1)

where:
t—period (time interval—year),
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 9 of 29

i—number of the company,

xit —k-element vector of explanatory variables or of their known functions (logarithm-type
transformation, compounding, lagging by one or two periods, etc.),
β—vector of structural parameters,
αi —parameter reflecting the unobserved and unaccounted for effect of belonging to the
i-th group in the model, the so-called individual effect,
uit —random component with a normal distribution and unknown variance.
Referring to the theory of capital structures, the following determinants (independent
variables) of financing structure were used in the study: asset structure (X1), relative
measure of working capital (X2), company size (X3), profitability (X4), noninterest tax
shield (X5) and interest tax shield (X6).
The ratio of total liabilities to total assets (Y = TL/TA) was assumed as the dependent
variable. In turn, the individual explanatory variables are defined as follows:
X1—ratio of fixed assets to total assets (FA/TA),
X2—ratio of current liabilities to current assets (CL/CA),
X3—natural logarithm of total assets (lnTA),
X4—rate of return on total assets (ROA),
X5—share of depreciation and amortization in total assets (DA/TA),
X6—ratio of income tax to gross profit/loss (before tax) (TAX/GPL).
Based on the variables defined above, the preliminary model that was assumed for
estimation and further verification was is follows:

         
TL FA CL DA TAX
= αi + × β1 + × β 2 + lnTAit × β 3 + ROAit × β 4 + × β5 + × β 6 + uit .
TA it TA it CA it TA it GPL

In panel models, due to the presence of so-called individual and temporal effects,
two different types of models are considered: models with fixed effects and models with
random effects. In the former case, αi is treated as parameters, i.e., unknown constants
subject to estimation. In the latter case, on the other hand, αi is random variable with
a normal distribution, zero expected value and unknown variance. It should be noted
that the fixed effects model is a special case of the random effects model. This means that
the assumption of random effects is weaker than the assumption that there are certain
unknown constants.
In the first case, the model’s structural parameters are usually estimated using the
least squares method (LSM) for fixed effects (the within-group estimator). The random
effects model (second case) has the structure of a generalised regression model, so in this
case, the generalised LSM is the effective estimator of random effects. The first model’s
inefficient parameterization and the need for an exceptionally large number of observations
over time for the LSM estimator for αi effects to be consistent are the model’s disadvantages.
By contrast, it has the advantage of allowing for a nonzero correlation between xit and αi .
Moreover, the within-group estimator for β is then consistent and unbiased, unlike the
estimator of random effects in the second model. The advantage of the random effects
model, on the other hand, is that it can allow incorporation of the influence of exogenous
variables, e.g., the level of initial capital, whose values for all objects are constant over
time. Additionally, when the number of periods is small, it is suggested that the random
effects estimator be used. However, the presence of a strong correlation between xit and αi
precludes the use of the random effects model [81].
From a formal point of view, in the context of the sample we have, the choice between
the two models depends on the results of an appropriate statistical test. The choice of the
type of effects, i.e., of the form of the model, can be made, for example, on the basis of the
classic Hausman test. The basis for the application of this universal test is the observation
(property) that, regardless of the strength of the correlation between xit and αi , the estimator
of fixed effects is consistent and unconstrained (when at least N → ∞). At the same time,
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 10 of 29

the random effects estimator loses the property of consistency when this correlation is
present. If the correlation under analysis is null (the null hypothesis of the Hausman
test), the estimator of random effects is a more efficient estimator than the estimator of
fixed effects, and the differences between the values of these estimators are statistically
insignificant [81].
In order to determine the appropriate form of the model describing the postulated
relationships, the deductive concept of model construction was used by applying the
general-to-specific modelling procedure, which was used, for example, by Polasik and
Marzec for the logit model [82]. First, models were created for fixed and variable effects,
and then their parameters were estimated for the full set of explanatory variables. The next
step involved a check of the significance of the model’s parameter estimates. If any variable
proved to be statistically insignificant in both models, it was removed, and the model
parameters were re-estimated with the number of regressors reduced by one. If there were
no longer insignificant variables in both models at the same time, the Hausman test was
performed to select the correct model for further analysis. The final model was obtained
when the effect of each explanatory variable was statistically significant at a significance
level of 0.1 (or less).
It is also important to mention some research limitations, mainly arising from the
model adopted and the assumptions involved, as well as the availability of data. The
main research limitations associated with the use of panel models include limited access to
panel data, the problem of homogeneity of the objects under study and random sampling,
short time series (long time series pose a problem with stationarity) and the problem of
endogeneity of the explanatory variables.
Despite some of their limitations, panel models also have many advantages. First of
all; they make it possible to model economic processes on the basis of complex data, e.g.,
on a company from a cross-sectional temporal perspective; they allow the introduction of
individual or time effects; they provide richer information, e.g., relative to cross-sectional
models; they usually allow for the reduction of collinearity between explanatory variables;
they give more degrees of freedom (they increase the efficiency of estimators) and they
allow for the introduction of additional variables—artificial or random.
For the individual empirical panels in each country, statistical verification was per-
formed on:
− Correlations between independent variables,
− Collinearity between independent variables,
− Cross-sectional dependence (Brausch–Pagan/LM test),
− Autocorrelation of the random component (Breusch–Godfrey/Wooldridge test),
− The presence of a stochastic trend for the dependent variable (Dickey–Fuller test),
− Homogeneity of the random component (Brausch–Pagan test),
− Normality of the distribution of the random component (based on the quantile-
quantile plot, the Shapiro–Wilk test and the chi-square test for normality).

5. The Results of Empirical Research in Selected EU Countries

As previously mentioned, the analysis and evaluation of companies’ financing struc-
tures, and in particular the study of their dependence (relevance, strength and direction)
on selected determinants, was conducted using the example of two sections, i.e., electric-
ity supply and mining and quarrying, from twelve EU countries. In the former section,
2419 companies were analysed based on available data, from which outlier observations
were rejected, while in the latter section, 616 companies were used. The numbers of compa-
nies covered by the study, with a breakdown by country, are shown in Tables 1 and 2. The
study employed linear panel models and covered the 2012–2020 period.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 11 of 29

Table 1. Results of verification of models explaining the TL/TA variable for 2012–2020 panel data in
the Energy section of 12 selected EU countries.

Estimator Type
Country N(T × N) F Test Hausman Test Wald Test
LSDV R2
χ2 (6) = 32.12
Bulgaria 185(1665) 0.779 F(6.15) = 42.54 *** χ2 (185) = 112,103
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 57.36
Czech Republic 93(837) 0.830 F(6.74) = 116.39 *** χ2 (93) = 192,386
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 353.19
France 438(3942) 0.884 F(6.35) = 404.94 *** χ2 (438) = 1,051,100
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 24.77
Germany 81(729) 0.907 F(6.64) = 29.22 *** χ2 (81) = 27,211
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 34.63
Hungary 17(153) 0.893 F(6.13) = 16.59 *** χ2 (17) = 48,474
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 202.42
Italy 660(5940) 0.827 F(6.53) = 216.45 *** χ2 (660) = 1,054,250
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 152.50
Poland 71(639) 0.884 F(6.56) = 104.72 *** χ2 (71) = 7862
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 19.98
Romania 51(459) 0.857 F(6.40) = 44.90 *** χ2 (51) = 68,975
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 26.69
Slovakia 73(657) 0.905 F(6.58) = 32.03 *** χ2 (73) = 130,734
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 635.80
Spain 664(5976) 0.904 F(6.53) = 413.55 *** χ2 (664) = 1,528,660
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 51.55
Sweden 40(360) 0.887 F(6.31) = 11.99 *** χ2 (40) = 16,085
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 13.54
United Kingdom 46(414) 0.881 F(6.36) = 11.86 *** χ2 (46) = 14,752
(fixed effects)
Notes: The following significance levels were used: *—significance level of 0.1; **—significance level of 0.05;
***—significance level of 0.01. N—number of enterprises, T—number of periods (9 years). Source: author’s own
calculations.

The accomplishment of the main research objective was preceded by a calculation of

the main statistical characteristics of the variables used in the models, i.e., the mean, median,
lower and upper quartiles, standard deviation, coefficient of variation and skewness. The
values of these characteristics are presented in Appendix A of the paper in Tables A1–A14.
Let us note the most important characteristics of each variable.
The overall debt ratio (TL/TA) is used as a measure of the structure of corporate
financing (explanatory variable). Analysis of this ratio furnishes valuable information
about the level of debt in the analysed sections and countries.
Within the group of analysed countries, in the electricity supply sector, the highest debt
level in 2012–2020 was revealed in France, Slovakia and Italy, where total debt to total assets
as measured by the mean stood at 65.5%, 59.9% and 58.4%, respectively, while the median
in these countries amounted to 74.2%, 63.1% and 64.9%, respectively (see Table A1). In
contrast, countries such as Poland and Hungary reveal the lowest debt, with a mean value
of 36.4% and 41.9% of the total debt ratio and medians of 34.6% and 37.1%, respectively.
Let it be added that the average value of this indicator for the surveyed countries in this
section in the study period of 2012–2020 measured by the mean was 51.3%, while the same
measured by the median stood at 53.3%.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 12 of 29

Table 2. Results of verification of models explaining the TL/TA variable for 2012–2020 panel data for
the mining and quarrying section of 12 selected EU countries.

Estimator Type
Country N(T × N) F Test/Wald χ2 Hausman Test Wald Test
LSDV R2
χ2 (6) = 20.78
Bulgaria 45(405) 0.901 F(6.35) = 18.92 *** χ2 (45) = 22,929
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 6.89
Czech Republic 13(117) 0.310 χ2 (6) = 49.22 *** x
(random effects)
χ2 (6) = 48.38
France 111(999) 0.909 F(6.88) = 108.93 *** χ2 (111) = 40,672
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 67.72
Hungary 24(216) 0.898 F(6.19) = 60.43 *** χ2 (24) = 4552
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 41.55
Italy 66(594) 0.913 F(6.52) = 21.59 *** χ2 (66) = 105,763
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 9.76
Poland 24(216) 0.211 χ2 (6) = 192.34 *** x
(random effects)
χ2 (6) = 28.55
Romania 82(738) 0.834 F(6.65) = 49.82 *** χ2 (82) = 56,553
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 9.96
Slovakia 10(90) 0.613 χ2 (6) = 139.54 *** x
(random effects)
χ2 (6) = 131.82
Spain 187(1683) 0.899 F(6.149) = 70.65 *** χ2 (187) = 1,706,550
(fixed effects)
χ2 (6) = 4.73
Sweden 31(279) 0.504 χ2 (6) = 126.35 *** x
(random effects)
χ2 (6) = 8.52
United Kingdom 23(207) 0.575 χ2 (6) = 221.83 *** x
(random effects)
Notes: The following significance levels were used: *—significance level of 0.1; **—significance level of 0.05;
***—significance level of 0.01. N—number of enterprises, T—number of periods (9 years). Germany was omitted
from the study due to insufficient data. Source: author’s own calculations.

The second researched section in the same countries and years was the mining and
quarrying section. In this section, the highest levels of corporate debt are revealed in
Germany, France and Romania. The mean values of total debt were 56.3%, 51.5% and 49.7%,
and the median values were 52.8%, 50.9% and 50.1%, respectively (see Table A8). Countries
with the lowest debt levels in this section include the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and
Hungary, for which the mean debt ratio was 21.3%, 24.9%, 25.8% and 27.2%, respectively,
and the median stood at 16.3%, 22.9%, 19.0% and 22.9%. The entire mining and quarrying
section covering the countries and years analysed has a mean value of 36.2% and a median
value of 33.1%, which means a relatively low level of debt among the mining enterprises
surveyed. The relatively low level of total debt for mining companies is also confirmed by
the results of the research carried out by Sierpińska [79].
Comparing the two analysed sections in terms of overall debt, two major conclusions
can be drawn. First, debt in the electricity supply section is at a relatively higher level
compared to the mining and quarrying section. Given the survey results obtained, these
differences should be considered significant. It should also be added that the higher
indebtedness of companies in the electricity supply section compared to the mining and
quarrying section was ascertained in all the countries analysed except Germany.
Secondly, relating the results to other sections, it should be concluded that debt in
the analysed companies, especially in the mining and quarrying section, is at a relatively
low level. In comparison, studies conducted for the same countries (excluding Sweden)
showed that between 2009 and 2017, the average debt level (measured in terms of the mean)
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 13 of 29

in the construction section was 62.1%, with a median of 61.9%, in trade 63.3% (63.2%), in
information and communication 53.5% (49.2%) and in manufacturing 57.7% (56.0%) [83].
The study of capital-asset adequacy is also an important element in the evaluation of
corporate financing, as reflected in capital structure theories. This is because asset structure
is an important factor influencing the structure of a company’s liabilities, with capital
structure theories explaining this influence in different ways.
Across the countries in the two sections analysed, the share of long-term assets in
relation to total assets is at a fairly even level, with the share in the electricity supply section
being at a much higher level. The average share of long-term assets in relation to total
assets in the electricity supply section, as measured by the mean in the countries and years
analysed, was 65.2%, with the median standing at 73.8%. By contrast, in the mining and
quarrying section, both the mean and the median for this ratio are 49.2% each. It should
also be noted that the higher share of long-term assets in total assets in the electricity supply
section compared to the mining and quarrying section is also accompanied by a higher
share of total liabilities in total assets (see Tables A2 and A9).
Another important measure of proper corporate financing is the ratio of equity to fixed
assets (E/FA). From an economic point of view, long-term assets should be fully financed
out of equity. This principle is not easy to meet, which means that in most enterprises it is
not respected.
In the electricity supply section, only Hungarian companies comply with the rule. By
contrast, in the remaining countries, the ratio of equity to long-term assets is below 1. The
average value of the E/FA ratio for the surveyed countries in this section in 2012–2022,
measured by the mean, was 75.7%, with the median at 64.9%. In the mining and quarrying
section, on the other hand, equity, with the exception of Romania, fully finances long-term
assets. The average value of the E/FA ratio in this section, measured by the mean, was
130%, with the median at 136%.
In assessing the proper financing of companies, attention should also be paid to the
degree to which current assets are financed by current liabilities (CL/CA). This financing
in the mining and quarrying section is at a lower level compared to the electricity supply
section. The average level of the CL/CA ratio for the mining and quarrying section, as
measured by the mean, stands at 52.2%, with the median at 39.3%. For the electricity supply
section, the values are 81.8% and 63.2%, respectively (cf. Tables A3 and A10).
The largest surveyed entities in terms of the value of their total assets are companies
in Germany and the United Kingdom, for which, after logarithmisation, these values are,
respectively: for the electricity supply section, the mean value is 11.32, the median 11.08,
respectively, and 12.21 (mean) and 12.16 (median), while for the mining and quarrying
section, the mean value is 11.129, with the median at 10.244, the mean at 10.23 and the
median at 9.91, respectively (see Tables A4 and A11).
Another important variable derived from the theory of capital and used in the study
is company profitability as measured by return on assets (ROA). Let it be noted that the
mining and quarrying section has a slightly higher profitability compared to the electricity
supply section. The average level of profitability measured in it is 7.97%, and the median is
6.56%. For the electricity supply section, these figures are 6.40% and 5.01%, respectively
(see Tables A5 and A12).
The ratio of depreciation and amortisation to the value of total assets (DA/TA) and
the value of income tax related to the value of gross profit/loss (TAX/GPL) were taken as
measures of the interest and noninterest tax shield. The average values in terms of both
mean and median for both analysed sections are similar, with the DA/TA variable having
values of approximately 5%, while the TAX/GPL variable stands at approximately 19%
(see Tables A6, A7, A13 and A14).
During the next stage of the analysis, the research models were verified using appro-
priate tests, and then the proposed hypotheses were verified.
The application of the Hausman test revealed that the fixed effects model was more
appropriate for the electricity supply section in each country. However, in the mining
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 14 of 29

and quarrying section, this model was only appropriate for certain countries (Bulgaria,
France, Spain, Romania, Hungary and Italy), while in countries such as the Czech Republic,
Poland, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom, the test indicated that the random
effects model was more appropriate. It should be added that in the case of the mining and
quarrying section, Germany was omitted from the study due to insufficient data for panel
analysis (see Tables 1 and 2).
The fit of the models to the data, as measured by the LSDV R2 coefficient of determina-
tion in the electricity supply section, was at a fairly high level, ranging from 0.779 to 0.907,
while the mining and quarrying section had more varied and lower values. The lowest fit
was ascertained for Poland (0.211) and the Czech Republic (0.310), while for the remaining
countries, it ranged between 0.504 and 0.913.
The assumption made in the regression model is that there is no correlation or only a
weak correlation between the independent variables. The study found a weak correlation
of this type. Evaluation of the collinearity of the independent variables showed only slight
collinearity among the predictors, as evidenced by the low values of the variance inflation
factors (VIF) test coefficients. In the electricity supply section, the values range from 1.02 to
3.67, and in the mining and quarrying section, from 1.01 to 2.23 (see Tables 3 and 4). Due
to the presence of cross-sectional dependence, autocorrelation and heterogeneity in the
variance of the random component, the final model was estimated using robust covariance
matrix estimation.

Table 3. VIF test results for 2012–2020 panel data in the Energy section of 12 selected EU countries.

Country FA/TA CL/CA lnTA ROA DA/TA TAX/GPL

Bulgaria 1.186 1.106 1.099 1.142 1.104 1.099
Czech Republic 1.704 1.147 1.167 1.069 1.782 1.046
France 1.206 1.083 1.168 1.204 1.124 1.186
Germany 1.759 1.476 1.142 1.109 1.293 1.025
Hungary 2.851 1.300 1.089 1.215 1.709 2.471
Italy 1.641 1.168 1.058 1.135 1.390 1.069
Poland 1.722 1.462 1.339 1.094 1.162 1.040
Romania 1.334 1.166 1.089 1.102 1.138 1.068
Slovakia 1.971 1.264 1.202 1.129 1.703 1.211
Spain 1.310 1.174 1.123 1.139 1.164 1.020
Sweden 3.666 1.211 1.097 1.153 2.567 1.614
United Kingdom 1.495 1.218 1.546 1.273 1.548 1.087
Source: author’s own calculations.

The final step of verification involved a check of the normality of the random compo-
nent distribution. Although statistical tests showed that the random components of the
models do not have a normal distribution, they somewhat resemble its shape. They are
characterised by quite high leptokurtosis in many cases.
After the panel models were obtained and the corresponding tests were conducted, the
research hypotheses were verified. The first of these (H1) referred to the significance of the
relationship between the financing structure of the studied companies and the structure of
assets, the ratio of current liabilities to current assets, the size of the company, profitability
and interest and noninterest tax shields.
The tests indicate a significant relationship between the financing structure and the
adopted explanatory variables in most of the analysed cases, except that a much higher
significance was revealed by the variables for enterprises belonging to the electricity supply
section. In this section, out of 72 cases, 12 cases showed a lack of significant relationship,
with the highest number (6) for the interest tax shield (Czech Republic, Germany, Poland,
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 15 of 29

Romania, Hungary and the UK). The other cases of nonsignificance involved the FA/TA
variable (Slovakia, Sweden and Italy), the CL/CA variable (Sweden), the lnTA variable
(Bulgaria) and the DA/TA variable (Poland) (see Table 5).

Table 4. VIF test results for 2012–2020 panel data for the mining and quarrying section of 12 selected
EU countries.

Country FA/TA CL/CA lnTA ROA DA/TA TAX/GPL

Bulgaria 1.812 1.512 1.409 1.176 1.103 1.111
Czech Republic 1.470 1.164 1.249 1.211 1.153 1.210
France 1.599 1.471 1.317 1.212 1.121 1.474
Hungary 1.609 1.391 1.106 1.140 1.375 1.077
Italy 1.256 1.139 1.190 1.201 1.033 1.243
Poland 2.228 1.685 1.476 1.440 1.358 1.100
Romania 1.152 1.109 1.070 1.062 1.073 1.014
Slovakia 2.021 1.954 1.447 1.270 1.556 1.085
Spain 1.360 1.280 1.219 1.145 1.034 1.048
Sweden 1.999 1.595 1.228 1.601 1.383 1.429
United Kingdom 1.641 1.366 1.219 1.421 1.343 1.402
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table 5. Results of estimation of models explaining the TL/TA variable for 2012–2020 panel data in
the Energy section of 12 selected EU countries.

Explanatory
Country FA/TA CL/CA lnTA ROA DA/TA TAX/GPL
Variables
Estimation 0.2497 0.0434 0.0166 −0.0055 −0.8373 −0.2513
Error 0.0470 0.0057 0.0139 0.0007 0.1694 0.1050
Bulgaria
t-test 5.3190 7.5970 1.1940 −7.9850 −4.9430 −2.3930
p-value 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.2326 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0168 **
Estimation 0.1898 0.0709 0.1458 −0.0144 −2.8841 −0.0140
Czech Error 0.0632 0.0116 0.0224 0.0010 0.3438 0.0808
Republic t-test 3.0040 6.1210 6.5160 −14.91 −8.390 −0.1735
p-value 0.0028 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.8623
Estimation 0.2307 0.0261 0.1697 −0.0066 −0.9673 −0.2590
Error 0.0193 0.0031 0.0089 0.0004 0.1034 0.0256
France
t-test 11.9600 8.3180 18.9700 −15.2100 −9.3510 −10.1400
p-value 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 ***
Estimation −0.3376 0.0544 0.0835 −0.0054 0.4311 0.0170
Error 0.0377 0.0082 0.0173 0.0009 0.2160 0.0359
Germany
t-test −8.9640 6.6400 4.8350 −5.9910 1.9960 0.4724
p-value 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0464 ** 0.6368
Estimation −0.3362 0.1661 0.0701 −0.0042 −2.0559 −0.0021
Error 0.1088 0.0197 0.0402 0.0015 0.8762 0.1246
Hungary
t-test −3.0900 8.4500 1.7420 −2.8630 −2.3460 −0.0171
p-value 0.0024 ** 0.0000 *** 0.0839* 0.0049 *** 0.0205 ** 0.9864
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 16 of 29

Table 5. Cont.

Explanatory
Country FA/TA CL/CA lnTA ROA DA/TA TAX/GPL
Variables
Estimation 0.0211 0.0619 0.0787 −0.0051 −1.1756 0.2315
Error 0.0201 0.0033 0.0071 0.0004 0.0907 0.0220
Italy
t-test 1.0520 18.8900 11.1000 −13.6200 −12.9700 10.5100
p-value 0.2927 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 ***
Estimation −0.1041 0.1025 0.2011 −0.0063 −0.1774 −0.0504
Error 0.0447 0.0084 0.0158 0.0006 0.1331 0.0522
Poland
t-test −2.3300 12.2500 12.7200 −10.5100 −1.3330 −0.9669
p-value 0.0202 ** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.1829 0.3340
Estimation −0.1190 0.0987 0.0581 −0.0069 −0.6271 −0.0505
Error 0.0568 0.0101 0.0134 0.0007 0.2238 0.0690
Romania
t-test −2.0960 9.7750 4.3300 −9.5750 −2.802 −0.7316
p-value 0.0367 ** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0053 *** 0.4648
Estimation 0.0266 0.0395 0.0913 −0.0050 −0.4757 −0.1467
Error 0.0430 0.0064 0.0186 0.0009 0.1797 0.0456
Slovakia
t-test 0.6195 6.1640 4.8950 −5.4530 −2.6480 −3.2200
p-value 0.5358 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0083 *** 0.0014 ***
Estimation 0.1281 0.0444 0.1712 −0.0045 −0.4937 0.1184
Error 0.0141 0.0027 0.0065 0.0003 0.0608 0.0365
Spain
t-test 9.0760 16.1900 26.4000 −14.3700 −8.1160 3.2440
p-value 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0012 ***
Estimation 0.0663 0.0026 0.1847 −0.0056 1.2739 −0.1790
Error 0.0808 0.0105 0.0316 0.0021 0.4857 0.0842
Sweden
t-test 0.8202 0.2500 5.8510 −2.7220 2.6230 −2.1250
p-value 0.4127 0.8028 0.0000 *** 0.0068 *** 0.0091 *** 0.0343 **
Estimation 0.1520 0.0442 0.0597 −0.0036 1.0163 0.0870

United Error 0.0576 0.0091 0.0244 0.0013 0.4866 0.0960

Kingdom t-test 2.6380 4.8760 2.4450 −2.7090 2.0890 0.9063
p-value 0.0087 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0150 ** 0.0071 *** 0.0374 ** 0.3654
Notes: The following significance levels were used: *—significance level of 0.1; **—significance level of 0.05;
***—significance level of 0.01. Source: author’s own calculations.

The second section, mining and quarrying, is characterised by a higher number

of nonsignificant variables. Out of the 66 cases analysed, 36 cases showed significant
dependence of the explanatory variables on the dependent variable, while the rest revealed
a lack of significance. The largest number of cases of nonsignificance in this section is found
for the lnTA variables (seven countries), ROA (seven countries), DA/TA (six countries) and
TAX/GPL (six countries) (see Table 6).
Another hypothesis (H2) tested the positive relationship between a company’s financ-
ing structure and the ratio of its current liabilities to current assets, the size of the company
and the tax and nontax shields.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 17 of 29

Table 6. Results of estimation of models explaining the TL/TA variable for 2012–2020 panel data in
the mining and quarrying section of 12 selected EU countries.

Explanatory
Country FA/TA CL/CA lnTA ROA DA/TA TAX/GPL
Variables
Estimation 0.0713 0.0932 0.0292 −0.0007 0.3175 −0.1954
Error 0.0420 0.0115 0.0179 0.0005 0.1594 0.0987
Bulgaria
t-test 1.6950 8.0930 1.6340 −1.4250 1.9920 −1.9800
p-value 0.0909 * 0.0000 *** 0.1033 0.1551 0.0471 ** 0.0485 **
Estimation 0.0607 0.1627 −0.0130 0.0017 −0.8160 0.3350

Czech Error 0.0898 0.0316 0.0199 0.0014 0.2620 0.1642

Republic Z test 0.6766 5.1530 −0.6835 1.2160 −3.1160 2.0400
p-value 0.4987 0.0000 *** 0.4943 0.2238 0.0018 *** 0.0413 **
Estimation 0.1010 0.1335 0.0636 −0.0030 −0.1362 0.0413
Error 0.0299 0.0089 0.0112 0.0005 0.1196 0.0302
France
t-test 3.3820 15.0200 5.6750 −7.8580 −1.1390 1.3650
p-value 0.0007 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.2551 0.1727
Estimation −0.3430 0.2605 −0.0660 −0.0003 0.0705 −0.3531
Error 0.0549 0.0167 0.0187 0.0008 0.2908 0.1430
Hungary
t-test −6.2430 15.5600 −3.5250 −0.4141 0.2424 −2.4690
p-value 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0005 *** 0.6793 0.8087 0.0144 **
Estimation −0.1354 0.1225 0.0003 −0.0023 0.5189 0.1574
Error 0.0388 0.0151 0.0132 0.0007 0.2023 0.0447
Italy
t-test −3.4910 8.1330 0.0203 −3.4870 2.5650 3.5240
p-value 0.0005 *** 0.0000 *** 0.9838 0.0005 *** 0.0106 ** 0.0005 ***
Estimation −0.0544 0.1871 −0.0067 −0.0024 −0.3973 0.0950
Error 0.0474 0.0186 0.0116 0.0008 0.2412 0.0859
Poland
Z test −1.1480 10.0500 −0.5785 −3.2150 −1.6470 1.1060
p-value 0.2508 0.0000 *** 0.5629 0.0013 *** 0.0996 * 0.2687
Estimation −0.0123 0.1592 −0.0217 −0.0044 −0.0638 0.0374
Error 0.0411 0.0140 0.0121 0.0006 0.1239 0.0591
Romania
t-test −0.2999 11.3500 −1.7890 −7.8160 −0.5147 0.6328
p-value 0.7644 0.0000 *** 0.0740 * 0.0000 *** 0.6069 0.5271
Estimation 0.0459 0.2232 0.0091 0.0001 −0.4306 −0.0333
Error 0.0612 0.0208 0.0144 0.0012 0.5123 0.1338
Slovakia
Z test 0.7499 10.7500 0.6293 0.0656 −0.8407 −0.2485
p-value 0.4533 0.0000 *** 0.5292 0.9477 0.4005 0.8037
Estimation −0.1680 0.1408 0.0505 −0.0002 −0.0410 0.0067
Error 0.0237 0.0073 0.0094 0.0004 0.1032 0.0436
Spain
t-test −7.1060 19.2600 5.3670 −0.6520 −0.4037 0.1531
p-value 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.5144 0.6865 0.8784
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 18 of 29

Table 6. Cont.

Explanatory
Country FA/TA CL/CA lnTA ROA DA/TA TAX/GPL
Variables
Estimation −0.2460 0.2511 −0.0104 0.0000 0.3917 −0.2180
Error 0.0565 0.0261 0.0116 0.0010 0.1845 0.0797
Sweden
Z test −4.3500 9.6240 −0.8923 0.0505 2.1230 −2.7350
p-value 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.3722 0.9597 0.0338 ** 0.0062 ***
Estimation −0.2988 0.3818 0.0109 −0.0009 −0.0123 −0.0097
United Error 0.0573 0.0270 0.0117 0.0008 0.2003 0.0800
Kingdom Z test −5.2160 14.1300 0.9340 −1.1180 −0.0614 −0.1212
p-value 0.0000 *** 0.0000 *** 0.3503 0.2637 0.9510 0.9036
Notes: The following significance levels were used: *—significance level of 0.1; **—significance level of 0.05;
***—significance level of 0.01. Germany was omitted from the study due to insufficient data. Source: author’s
own calculations.

In the electricity supply section, the results of the study confirmed the correctness
of this hypothesis in most cases. Among the 48 cases covered by the study (4 variables,
12 countries), 27 cases confirmed the positive impact of these variables on the dependent
variable, with the majority of 22 cases involving the CL/CA and lnTA variables. Both vari-
ables were significant in 11 countries, except the CL/CA variable, which was insignificant
in Sweden and the lnTA variable in Bulgaria.
In the case of the DA/TA variable, a positive impact occurred in three countries
(Germany, Sweden and the UK), in eight it turned out to be negative, and in one country
(Poland) it was insignificant. The least conclusive results were obtained for the TAX/GFR
variable. In this case, a positive relationship was observed only in Spain and Italy and
a negative one in four countries (Bulgaria, France, Slovakia and Sweden), while it was
insignificant in the remaining six countries (see Table 5).
In the second section analysed, mining and quarrying, the most unequivocal positive
effect on the shaping of the financing structure was observed only for the CL/CA variable.
This variable was significant in each country covered in the study.
For the other variables in this section, the number of cases (countries) that were
statistically significant was already much smaller and more diverse. For the lnTA variable, a
positive relationship was revealed only in French and Spanish companies. In two countries
(Romania and Hungary), the relationship turned out to be negative, and in the remaining
countries, it was insignificant.
For the noninterest tax shield, a positive impact on debt levels was ascertained in
Bulgaria, Sweden and Italy. In two countries (the Czech Republic and Poland), the impact
was negative, and in the remaining countries, no significant relationship was found to exist.
In contrast, in the case of the interest tax shield, a positive impact on the size of the
debt was found to exist in two countries (the Czech Republic and Italy) and a negative one
in three countries (Bulgaria, Sweden and Hungary). In the other countries analysed, the
relationship was found to be insignificant (see Table 6).
The last hypothesis (H3) referred to the study of a negative relationship between a
company’s financing structure and its asset structure and profitability.
It should be stated that the research covering the electricity supply section confirmed
this hypothesis to a fairly large extent. Out of 24 cases analysed, a negative relationship
was determined in 16 cases. It is noteworthy that the ROA variable had a negative impact
on the dependent variable in all countries under analysis. In the case of the FA/TA variable,
a negative impact already occurred in only four countries (Germany, Poland, Romania and
Hungary), while a positive impact was observed in five countries (Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
France, Spain and the UK). In the remaining two countries, there was no significant impact
of the FA/TA variable on the TL/TA dependent variable (see Table 5).
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 19 of 29

In the second section, mining and quarrying, the research confirmed hypothesis three
(H3) to a much lesser extent. Out of the 22 cases analysed, only 10 revealed a negative
relationship. The impact of the FA/TA variable on the dependent variable was found to be
negative in six countries (France, Spain, Sweden, Hungary, the UK and Italy). In Bulgaria,
the survey revealed a positive impact, while in the remaining four countries’ impact was
insignificant. For the ROA variable, on the other hand, a negative impact was determined
in four countries (France, Poland, Romania and Italy), while the remaining seven countries
analysed revealed a nonsignificant impact (see Table 6).
Considering studies by other authors, a positive relationship between the financing
structure and company size in the energy sector was shown, inter alia, studies by: Saeed [71],
Ghani and Bukhari [60] and Jaworski and Czerwonka [78].
A significant number of studies reveal a positive relationship between the financing
structure and asset structure [51,60,67,78].
In turn, a negative relationship between liquidity and the financing structure was
confirmed by the studies conducted by the following authors: Liu and Ning [72], Berkman,
Iskenderoglu, Karadeniz and Ayyildiz [51], Grabińska B, K˛edzior M., K˛edzior M. and
Grabiński K. [70], Jaworski and Czerwonka [78].
In the case of profitability, the dominant relationship is a negative one, as confirmed
by, among others: Saeed [71], Liu and Ning [72], Ghani and Bukhari [60], Chakrabarti and
Chakrabarti [67], Grabińska B., K˛edzior M., K˛edzior D. and Grabiński K. [70], Jaworski and
Czerwonka [78].
Among the studies in the mining and quarrying section, the results obtained by Endri
et al. [84] should be noted. They studied the impact of oil prices, interest rates, profitability,
liquidity and company size on the leverage of mining companies in Indonesia. They
showed that the first four factors mentioned have a negative impact on leverage levels,
while company size has no impact on debt levels.
It should be noted that, in the research conducted, the most ambiguous determinants
of the financing structure include the interest and noninterest tax shields.
The analysis of the research results allows us to conclude that in both the electricity
supply and mining and quarrying sections, the studied determinants similarly affected the
financing structures of enterprises, and the formulated research hypotheses were partly
verified. However, the electricity supply section revealed a greater number of cases of
significance. In addition, Table 7 shows the results of the study in the analysed sections
against selected capital structure theories. This comparison shows that profitability in both
analysed sections strongly and at the same time negatively influenced the share of total debt
in the financing structure, which coincides with the assumptions of the pecking order theory.
This implies that companies primarily use equity to finance their activities. The second
variable that clearly affected the financing structure in both analysed sections is the CL/CA
variable, which expresses the inverse of liquidity. The research results reveal that in both
the electricity supply and mining and quarrying sections, the CL/CA variable positively
influenced the share of total debt in total assets, meaning that as liquidity increased, the
share of debt in the financing structure decreased.
Furthermore, research into the electricity supply section reveals a clear impact of
company size on the financing structure. This relationship turned out to be a positive
one, so large enterprises in this section showed a higher share of total liabilities in their
financing structure. It should be added that such a relationship follows from the agency
and substitution theories. In the case of the other variables, the research shows that the
relationships studied were ambiguous.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 20 of 29

Table 7. The relationship between the financing structure and selected determinants in the light of
certain theories of capital structure and the obtained research results.

Explanatory Pecking Order Agency Substitution Signalling Energy Mining and

Variables Theory Theory Theory Theory Section Quarrying Section
Asset’s structure − + + n/a +/− +/−
Size +/− + + n/a + +/−
Profitability − + + + − −
Liquidity − x + x −* −*
Noninterest tax shield − + − n/a +/− +/−
Interest tax shield x x x x +/− +/−
Notes: + positive relationship, − negative relationship, +/− ambiguous relationship; n/a—no grounds to indicate
a relationship; x—not applicable; *—the CL/CA variable used in the research is the reciprocal of the general
financial liquidity ratio. Source: author’s own elaboration.

6. Conclusions
Decisions on the financing structure of companies are among the most difficult and, at
the same time, most important management problems of any enterprise. This is because,
in the practice of every enterprise, all large investments are made by employing external
capital. Management should shape the structure of financing sources in a way that ensures
their company’s continued growth on the one hand and minimises the financial risks of
the business on the other. The financing structure is also one of the key factors influencing
the current economic performance of a company. Therefore, research into the formation of
financing structures and their determining factors is still relevant.
The research presented in this paper covers the energy and mining sectors, i.e., those
areas of the economy that are currently undergoing a profound transformation requiring
very large investments and major changes in asset structure, which, in turn, implies the
search for new financial resources.
The main aim of the paper was to examine the dependence of the financing structures
of these companies on selected microeconomic determinants. The research verifies the
significance of the impact, strength and direction of the influence of these determinants on
the size of debt using data on companies from twelve European Union countries spanning
the period between 2012 and 2020. In addition, a general analysis and evaluation of asset,
liability and equity structures was conducted.
The research revealed that the indebtedness of enterprises in the EU countries covered
by the research in the electricity supply section is at a relatively higher level relative to the
mining and quarrying section. Referring to other studies, it should also be stated that in
the EU countries, the indebtedness of enterprises in the above sections is at a relatively low
level compared to sections such as construction, manufacturing, trade and information and
communication [83].
In the countries and sections analysed, the share of fixed assets in relation to total
assets remains at a fairly even level. However, the share is at a much higher level in the
electricity supply section. The average share of fixed assets in relation to total assets in
the electricity supply section between 2012 and 2022 was approximately 70%, and in the
mining and quarrying section at approximately 50%. It should also be noted that in almost
each of the countries, the share of fixed assets in total assets exceeds the share of liabilities
in total assets. The only exceptions involve companies from France, Germany and Italy in
the mining and quarrying section.
The research also showed that current assets in the electricity supply section are
financed using short-term liabilities to a greater extent than in the mining and quarrying
section. In turn, the profitability of companies in the mining and quarrying section was
higher compared to the electricity supply section.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 21 of 29

The study provided evidence of a relationship between the determinants assumed

in the model and the financing structure of the companies under analysis (Hypothesis
H1). A significantly higher relevance was revealed by the variables for the companies
in the electricity supply section. In this section, out of 72 cases, a statistically significant
relationship was revealed in 60, while in the mining and quarrying section, out of 66 cases
analysed, this significance was established in 36 cases.
The verification of hypothesis two allows us to conclude that the CL/CA and lnTA
variables had the greatest positive impact on the overall financing structure in the electricity
supply section. In the case of interest and noninterest tax shields, a greater number of cases
involved a negative (12) impact rather than a positive (5) one.
In the second section analysed, mining and quarrying, hypothesis two was fully
confirmed, i.e., in all countries under analysis, only for the CL/CA variable. For the other
variables, a positive impact on the financing structure was found in only seven countries,
and a negative impact also occurred in seven countries.
Hypothesis three, on the other hand, assumed a negative dependence of the financing
structure on such variables as asset structure and profitability. In the case of profitability in
the electricity supply section, the research confirmed the correctness of this hypothesis in
all of the countries analysed, while asset structure had a negative impact on the financing
structure in four of the countries studied, and in five countries the impact was positive.
In the second section, i.e., mining and quarrying, a negative relationship between
the financing structure and the asset structure was determined in six countries, while a
positive one was determined in one country alone. In the case of profitability, the research
confirmed a negative relationship with financing structure in only four countries.
As already mentioned, the study covered 12 countries of the European Union, in-
cluding 6 countries from the ‘old’ EU and 6 newly acceded countries. This selection of
countries was aimed at conducting additional research to answer whether the two different
economic systems in the second half of the last century were factors that played a role in
differentiating the impact of the studied determinants on the structure of corporate finance
(in these two groups of countries).
The research did not find that the origin of a country in a particular economic system
had a significant impact on the factors shaping the structure of corporate finance. For this
reason, the article does not present these research results.
The overall picture that emerges from the research suggests that the analysed sections,
i.e., electricity supply and mining and quarrying, are in a favourable economic and financial
situation, laying a solid foundation for investment and further development. The results of
the study showing a negative impact on profitability and liquidity mean that companies in
these sections are not operating under pressure to increase their debt levels. In addition,
their sheer level of profitability, relatively low debt level, as well as the dominant share of
the state in their capital structure account for their high creditworthiness. It should also be
noted that, in the case of the energy sector, the above conclusions coincide with the results
of research by other authors (Grabiński and K˛edzior).
The studies presented in this paper ended in 2020, which was also the beginning
of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as well as the ensuing high turbulence in the energy and
coal markets and high inflation. Thus, they did not confirm the economic impacts of
these phenomena on the operations of the companies studied. It will undoubtedly be
worthwhile to conduct further similar studies showing their impact on changes in the
financing structures of the above sectors.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.B.; Methodology, J.B. and A.H.; Validation, J.B. and A.H.;
Formal analysis, J.B. and A.H.; Investigation, J.B.; Resources, J.B.; Data curation, J.B.; Writing—original
draft, J.B.; Writing—review and editing, J.B.; Visualization, J.B.; Project administration, A.H.; Funding
acquisition, A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Cracow University of Economics (90/ZZR/2020/POT).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 22 of 29

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Variable and Explanatory Variables

Table A1. Descriptive statistics for the TL/TA dependent variable in the energy section.

Bottom Top Standard Coefficient

Country T×N Mean Median Skewness
Quantile Quantile Deviation of Variation
Bulgaria 1665 0.4830 0.527 0.200 0.732 0.301 62.26 −0.154
Czech Republic 837 0.5188 0.535 0.310 0.732 0.262 50.59 −0.159
France 3942 0.6549 0.742 0.483 0.875 0.271 41.39 −0.871
Germany 729 0.4674 0.491 0.352 0.577 0.158 33.87 −0.244
Hungary 153 0.4190 0.371 0.235 0.554 0.253 60.28 0.581
Italy 5940 0.5838 0.649 0.370 0.817 0.280 47.92 −0.509
Poland 639 0.3643 0.346 0.244 0.483 0.160 43.82 0.351
Romania 459 0.5284 0.496 0.308 0.769 0.262 49.52 0.023
Slovakia 657 0.5991 0.631 0.421 0.807 0.245 40.88 −0.509
Spain 5976 0.4901 0.499 0.193 0.776 0.309 63.09 0.005
Sweden 360 0.5142 0.497 0.329 0.714 0.228 44.41 0.029
United Kingdom 414 0.5318 0.606 0.298 0.728 0.260 48.95 −0.387
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A2. Descriptive statistics for the FA/TA explanatory variable in the energy section.

Bottom Top Standard Coefficient

Country T×N Mean Median Skewness
Quantile Quantile Deviation of Variation
Bulgaria 1665 0.735 0.827 0.628 0.911 0.246 33.52 −1.381
Czech Republic 837 0.667 0.784 0.508 0.868 0.281 42.06 −1.097
France 3942 0.737 0.795 0.674 0.865 0.197 26.75 −1.714
Germany 729 0.702 0.752 0.632 0.825 0.181 25.74 −1.678
Hungary 153 0.506 0.551 0.317 0.743 0.267 52.76 −0.517
Italy 5940 0.583 0.711 0.310 0.837 0.312 53.49 −0.724
Poland 639 0.711 0.743 0.640 0.797 0.133 18.69 −1.286
Romania 459 0.568 0.609 0.398 0.774 0.268 47.27 −0.573
Slovakia 657 0.625 0.741 0.462 0.831 0.274 43.93 −0.916
Spain 5976 0.713 0.802 0.586 0.902 0.243 34.11 −1.133
Sweden 360 0.634 0.768 0.476 0.884 0.323 50.86 −1.003
United Kingdom 414 0.646 0.777 0.471 0.888 0.306 47.29 −0.894
Source: author’s own calculations.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 23 of 29

Table A3. Descriptive statistics for the CL/CA explanatory variable in the energy section.

Country T×N Mean Bottom Top Standard Coefficient

Median Quantile Quantile Deviation of Variation Skewness

Bulgaria 1665 0.842 0.562 0.173 1.122 0.924 109.70 1.861

Czech Republic 837 0.645 0.596 0.247 0.894 0.540 83.71 2.152
France 3942 0.674 0.411 0.123 0.916 0.780 115.69 2.045
Germany 729 0.795 0.727 0.384 1.046 0.524 65.96 1.201
Hungary 153 0.809 0.744 0.397 1.005 0.576 71.16 1.672
Italy 5940 0.793 0.568 0.240 0.994 0.806 101.71 1.968
Poland 639 0.857 0.682 0.426 1.095 0.632 73.82 1.874
Romania 459 0.915 0.740 0.451 1.179 0.725 79.25 1.987
Slovakia 657 1.057 0.813 0.475 1.354 0.869 82.27 1.554
Spain 5976 0.745 0.492 0.192 0.970 0.811 108.73 2.075
Sweden 360 0.861 0.674 0.405 1.088 0.673 78.08 1.936
United Kingdom 414 0.828 0.575 0.320 0.976 0.796 96.17 1.952
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A4. Descriptive statistics for the lnTA explanatory variable in the energy section.

Bottom Top Standard Coefficient

Country T×N Mean Median Quantile Quantile Skewness
Deviation of Variation
Bulgaria 1665 7.625 7.579 6.294 8.464 1.779 23.33 0.852
Czech Republic 1665 7.625 7.579 6.294 8.464 1.779 23.33 0.852
France 3942 7.411 6.957 6.033 8.666 1.850 24.96 1.220
Germany 729 11.316 11.077 10.168 12.083 1.593 14.08 0.693
Hungary 153 9.080 9.083 7.552 10.208 1.865 20.54 0.884
Italy 5940 8.166 7.967 7.007 8.997 1.792 21.95 1.093
Poland 5940 8.166 7.967 7.007 8.997 1.792 21.95 1.093
Romania 459 8.669 8.490 7.281 9.668 2.083 24.03 0.904
Slovakia 657 8.619 8.532 7.770 9.300 1.305 15.14 0.916
Spain 5976 7.467 6.787 6.154 8.385 1.930 25.85 1.746
Sweden 360 9.823 9.810 9.119 11.024 1.548 15.76 −0.799
United Kingdom 414 12.208 12.163 10.605 14.550 2.364 19.37 −0.067
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A5. Descriptive statistics for the ROA (in %) explanatory variable in the energy section.

Country T×N Mean Bottom Top Standard Coefficient

Median Quantile Quantile Deviation of Variation Skewness

Bulgaria 1665 5.93 4.51 1.25 8.59 7.85 132.23 1.15

Czech Republic 837 6.59 6.06 2.82 9.49 5.85 88.74 −0.29
France 3942 5.58 4.58 1.81 8.36 6.53 116.97 1.31
Germany 729 6.77 5.69 3.18 9.03 4.82 71.16 1.68
Hungary 153 7.71 4.85 1.89 9.60 8.67 112.52 2.35
Italy 153 7.71 4.85 1.89 9.60 8.67 112.52 2.35
Poland 639 4.75 3.93 1.99 6.40 5.69 119.87 0.43
Romania 639 4.75 3.93 1.99 6.40 5.69 119.87 0.43
Slovakia 657 6.75 5.77 2.70 8.57 5.71 84.69 1.81
Spain 5976 4.42 2.81 0.63 6.91 6.47 146.32 1.14
Sweden 360 6.39 5.47 3.22 8.91 4.48 69.98 0.83
United Kingdom 414 9.39 7.72 4.78 12.50 6.37 67.80 1.42
Source: author’s own calculations.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 24 of 29

Table A6. Descriptive statistics for the DA/TA explanatory variable in the energy section.

Country T×N Mean Bottom Top Standard Coefficient

Median Quantile Quantile Deviation of Variation Skewness

Bulgaria 1665 0.054 0.047 0.031 0.066 0.038 70.50 1.866

Czech Republic 837 0.052 0.051 0.037 0.066 0.028 54.39 0.930
France 3942 0.060 0.057 0.045 0.073 0.030 50.20 1.417
Germany 729 0.048 0.049 0.035 0.059 0.019 40.22 0.802
Hungary 153 0.040 0.040 0.020 0.059 0.026 63.23 0.328
Italy 5940 0.046 0.043 0.021 0.061 0.034 74.58 1.275
Poland 639 0.065 0.063 0.050 0.077 0.028 43.21 1.354
Romania 459 0.046 0.042 0.021 0.062 0.033 71.68 1.315
Slovakia 657 0.069 0.068 0.045 0.089 0.041 59.57 0.863
Spain 5976 0.065 0.056 0.035 0.087 0.046 69.90 1.351
Sweden 360 0.046 0.049 0.038 0.061 0.024 52.51 −0.341
United Kingdom 414 0.041 0.032 0.021 0.058 0.027 65.52 0.867
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A7. Descriptive statistics for the TAX/GPL explanatory variable in the energy section.

Bottom Top Standard Coefficient

Country T×N Mean Median Quantile Quantile Skewness
Deviation of Variation
Bulgaria 1665 0.082 0.099 0.074 0.102 0.049 59.83 0.036
Czech Republic 837 0.189 0.190 0.183 0.200 0.063 33.02 0.641
France 837 0.189 0.190 0.183 0.200 0.063 33.02 0.641
Germany 729 0.246 0.273 0.156 0.319 0.105 42.71 −0.337
Hungary 153 0.156 0.114 0.065 0.221 0.123 78.82 1.059
Italy 5940 0.269 0.291 0.243 0.331 0.110 40.77 −0.910
Poland 639 0.201 0.197 0.187 0.214 0.052 25.67 0.699
Romania 459 0.120 0.140 0.021 0.169 0.089 74.37 0.405
Slovakia 657 0.201 0.217 0.184 0.234 0.089 44.42 −0.537
Spain 5976 0.242 0.250 0.238 0.250 0.048 19.82 −0.946
Sweden 360 0.137 0.157 0.031 0.219 0.101 73.35 0.146
United Kingdom 414 0.189 0.194 0.169 0.214 0.059 31.16 −0.225
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A8. Descriptive statistics for the TL/TA dependent variable in the mining and quarrying section.

Country T×N Mean Bottom Top Standard Coefficient

Median Quantile Quantile Deviation of Variation Skewness

Bulgaria 405 0.3381 0.2909 0.1354 0.4761 0.2437 72.0823 0.7853

Czech Republic 117 0.2129 0.1628 0.0720 0.3338 0.1713 80.4607 0.9030
France 999 0.5147 0.5092 0.3457 0.6982 0.2296 44.6151 −0.0212
Germany 54 0.5627 0.5278 0.4090 0.6178 0.2193 38.9698 0.9354
Hungary 216 0.2717 0.1898 0.1135 0.3736 0.2174 80.0287 1.3311
Italy 594 0.4329 0.4203 0.1819 0.6627 0.2696 62.2854 0.1640
Poland 216 0.2494 0.2286 0.1517 0.3239 0.1372 55.0094 1.0752
Romania 738 0.4966 0.5009 0.2743 0.7141 0.2584 52.0401 0.0241
Slovakia 90 0.2579 0.2287 0.1164 0.3641 0.1587 61.5304 0.6605
Spain 1683 0.3245 0.2714 0.1375 0.4704 0.2367 72.9580 0.7250
Sweden 279 0.3660 0.3502 0.2255 0.5151 0.2088 57.0392 0.4012
United Kingdom 207 0.3178 0.2969 0.1813 0.4237 0.1957 61.6003 0.6588
Source: author’s own calculations.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 25 of 29

Table A9. Descriptive statistics for the FA/TA explanatory variable in the mining and quarrying
section.

Bottom Top Standard Coefficient of

Country T×N Mean Median Quantile Quantile Skewness
Deviation Variation
Bulgaria 405 0.5176 0.4990 0.3176 0.7333 0.2539 49.0515 −0.0149
Czech Republic 117 0.5544 0.5354 0.4339 0.6780 0.1543 27.8258 0.3701
France 999 0.3742 0.3602 0.2277 0.5028 0.1979 52.8982 0.3817
Germany 54 0.4379 0.3931 0.3126 0.6158 0.2191 50.0399 −0.3500
Hungary 216 0.5084 0.4937 0.3866 0.6435 0.1821 35.8235 −0.1385
Italy 594 0.4104 0.4092 0.2123 0.5919 0.2347 57.1845 0.0360
Poland 216 0.5661 0.5766 0.4418 0.6940 0.2031 35.8806 −0.5434
Romania 738 0.5169 0.5208 0.4007 0.6652 0.2045 39.5637 −0.3325
Slovakia 90 0.5416 0.6031 0.3237 0.7325 0.2073 38.2876 −0.3339
Spain 1683 0.4833 0.4813 0.3180 0.6494 0.2286 47.3025 0.0558
Sweden 279 0.5318 0.5529 0.3416 0.7166 0.2142 40.2737 −0.2916
United Kingdom 207 0.4596 0.4766 0.2908 0.6579 0.2536 55.1751 −0.1201
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A10. Descriptive statistics for the CL/CA explanatory variable in the mining and quarrying
section.

Country T×N Mean Bottom Top Standard Coefficient of

Median Quantile Quantile Deviation Variation Skewness

Bulgaria 405 0.582 0.395 0.154 0.816 0.597 102.649 2.068

Czech Republic 117 0.368 0.304 0.151 0.477 0.337 91.493 3.141
France 999 0.599 0.451 0.298 0.763 0.509 84.954 2.688
Germany 54 0.465 0.326 0.250 0.449 0.421 90.577 1.765
Hungary 216 0.495 0.314 0.177 0.626 0.539 109.040 3.123
Italy 594 0.508 0.410 0.213 0.695 0.432 85.105 2.268
Poland 216 0.494 0.367 0.212 0.707 0.379 76.742 1.595
Romania 738 0.669 0.583 0.317 0.898 0.471 70.299 1.474
Slovakia 90 0.516 0.345 0.161 0.655 0.528 102.387 1.798
Spain 1683 0.523 0.361 0.168 0.668 0.558 106.694 2.600
Sweden 279 0.575 0.452 0.282 0.691 0.499 86.863 2.412
United Kingdom 207 0.468 0.410 0.253 0.617 0.332 70.930 1.662
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A11. Descriptive statistics for the lnTA explanatory variable in the mining and quarrying
section.

Country T×N Mean Bottom Top Standard Coefficient of

Median Quantile Quantile Deviation Variation Skewness

Bulgaria 405 7.983 7.654 6.428 9.042 2.050 25.678 0.668

Czech Republic 117 9.960 9.578 8.859 10.992 1.672 16.786 0.765
France 999 8.745 8.636 7.888 9.593 1.308 14.961 0.196
Germany 54 11.129 10.244 9.277 12.702 2.252 20.239 0.900
Hungary 216 7.681 7.557 6.922 8.254 1.101 14.338 0.427
Italy 594 8.082 7.988 7.172 8.880 1.444 17.867 1.035
Poland 216 9.466 9.026 8.339 10.394 1.714 18.105 0.987
Romania 738 7.633 7.336 6.508 8.269 1.761 23.076 2.182
Slovakia 90 8.566 8.974 6.592 9.676 1.879 21.935 −0.236
Spain 1683 7.800 7.649 6.908 8.581 1.428 18.311 0.613
Sweden 279 8.634 8.732 7.343 9.490 1.829 21.186 1.724
United Kingdom 207 10.238 9.910 9.303 10.994 1.449 14.157 0.603
Source: author’s own calculations.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 26 of 29

Table A12. Descriptive statistics for the ROA (in %) explanatory variable in the mining and quarrying
section.

Bottom Top Standard Coefficient of

Country T×N Mean Median Quantile Quantile Skewness
Deviation Variation
Bulgaria 405 5.656 3.471 0.730 10.644 10.774 190.483 0.456
Czech Republic 117 9.402 8.090 5.407 12.870 6.379 67.846 0.775
France 999 6.822 6.013 2.585 10.963 7.948 116.506 −0.219
Germany 54 9.912 7.933 4.792 15.885 7.002 70.646 0.599
Hungary 216 11.924 10.501 4.445 16.709 8.875 74.434 1.197
Italy 594 5.226 4.063 0.935 9.414 8.801 168.404 0.293
Poland 216 10.748 9.168 5.218 13.637 9.160 85.219 1.828
Romania 738 8.929 6.103 1.366 15.104 10.850 121.518 0.730
Slovakia 90 6.778 5.493 2.137 9.777 6.811 100.489 1.229
Spain 1683 2.317 1.360 −0.491 5.026 7.532 325.130 0.466
Sweden 279 10.620 9.118 5.149 13.402 7.606 71.624 1.858
United Kingdom 207 7.399 7.472 4.032 12.252 11.406 154.156 −0.637
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A13. Descriptive statistics for the DA/TA explanatory variable in the mining and quarrying
section.

Country T×N Mean Bottom Top Standard Coefficient of

Median Quantile Quantile Deviation Variation Skewness

Bulgaria 405 0.062 0.050 0.027 0.090 0.048 77.856 1.392

Czech Republic 117 0.052 0.046 0.031 0.060 0.037 70.103 2.201
France 999 0.056 0.049 0.029 0.076 0.037 66.375 1.154
Germany 54 0.061 0.060 0.033 0.085 0.037 60.003 0.618
Hungary 216 0.065 0.058 0.040 0.084 0.033 51.019 0.622
Italy 594 0.039 0.032 0.018 0.055 0.029 76.463 1.582
Poland 216 0.051 0.045 0.035 0.062 0.026 51.708 1.249
Romania 738 0.081 0.073 0.045 0.110 0.051 63.548 0.816
Slovakia 90 0.060 0.041 0.024 0.095 0.041 68.189 0.635
Spain 1683 0.035 0.030 0.014 0.046 0.030 85.055 2.393
Sweden 279 0.084 0.079 0.049 0.113 0.044 52.823 0.828
United Kingdom 207 0.055 0.050 0.024 0.073 0.045 80.284 1.439
Source: author’s own calculations.

Table A14. Descriptive statistics for the TAX/GPL explanatory variable in the mining and quarrying
section.

Country T×N Mean Bottom Top Standard Coefficient of

Median Quantile Quantile Deviation Variation Skewness

Bulgaria 405 0.074 0.099 0.000 0.104 0.062 83.513 0.900

Czech Republic 117 0.196 0.191 0.177 0.210 0.049 24.999 1.493
France 999 0.221 0.272 0.096 0.322 0.137 62.181 −0.589
Germany 54 0.249 0.267 0.198 0.299 0.067 26.901 −0.506
Hungary 216 0.081 0.077 0.050 0.098 0.045 55.422 1.359
Italy 594 0.242 0.277 0.164 0.334 0.132 54.618 −0.591
Poland 216 0.200 0.197 0.188 0.209 0.046 23.032 2.136
Romania 738 0.135 0.148 0.085 0.169 0.086 63.973 0.657
Slovakia 90 0.226 0.221 0.212 0.242 0.058 25.854 0.684
Spain 1683 0.239 0.250 0.235 0.251 0.056 23.503 −1.029
Sweden 279 0.180 0.192 0.124 0.230 0.091 50.437 −0.023
United Kingdom 207 0.184 0.201 0.147 0.236 0.102 55.151 −0.298
Source: author’s own calculations.
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 27 of 29

References
1. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 21st Conference of the Parties—COP21, Paris, France, 12 December
2015. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015 (accessed on 30 November 2021).
2. Białas, P. Available online: https://pl.boell.org/pl/2021/11/30/cop26 (accessed on 30 November 2021).
3. European Commission a European Green Deal. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/
european-green-deal_en#documents (accessed on 15 January 2021).
4. European Commission: 2021 Commission Work Programme—From Strategy to Delivery. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/
commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1940 (accessed on 19 October 2020).
5. Masulis, R.W. The Debt Equity Choice; Ballinger Publishing Company: Cambridge, UK, 1988.
6. Gajdka, J. Teorie Struktury Kapitału i Ich Aplikacja w Warunkach Polskich; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego: Łódź, Poland,
2002.
7. Ross, S.A.; Westerfield, R.W.; Jaffe, J.F. Corporate Finance; Irwin: Boston, MA, USA, 1993.
8. Higgins, R.C. Analysis for Financial Management; Irwin: Homewood, AL, USA, 1992.
9. Weston, J.F.; Copeland, T.E. Managerial Finance; The Dryden Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
10. Pike, R.; Neale, B. Corporate Finance and Investment; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1993.
11. Moyer, R.C.; McGuigan, J.R.; Kretlow, W.J. Contemporary Financial Management; West Publishing Company: St Paul, MN, USA,
1992.
12. Brealey, R.A.; Myers, S.C. Principles of Corporate Finance; McGrawHill International Editions: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
13. Lumby, S. Investment Appraisal and Financing Decisions; Chapman and Hall: London, UK, 1994.
14. Modigliani, F.; Miller, M.H. The cost of capital, corporation finance, and the theory of investment. Am. Econ. Rev. 1958, 48,
261–297.
15. Harris, M.; Raviv, A. The Theory of Capital Structure. J. Financ. 1991, 46, 297–355. [CrossRef]
16. Nehrebecka, N.; Białek-Jaworska, A.; Dzik-Walczak, A. Źródła Finansowania Przedsi˛ebiorstw: Stan Badań i ich Metaanaliza; Difin:
Warszawa, Poland, 2016.
17. DeAngelo, H.; Masulis, R.W. Optimal Capital Structure under Corporate and Personal Taxation. J. Financ. Econ. 1980, 8, 3–29.
[CrossRef]
18. Baxter, N. Leverage, Risk of Ruin and the Cost of Capital. J. Financ. 1967, 22, 395–403.
19. Stiglitz, J.E. A Re-Examination of the Modigliani-Miller Theorem. Am. Econ. Rev. 1969, 59, 784–793.
20. Kraus, A.; Litzenberger, R.H. A State-Preference Model of Optimal Financial Leverage. J. Financ. 1973, 28, 911–922. [CrossRef]
21. Scott, J.H. Bankruptcy, Secured Debt, and Optimal Capital Structure. J. Financ. 1977, 32, 1–19. [CrossRef]
22. Kim, E.H. A Mean-Variance Theory of Optimal Capital Structure and Corporate Debt Capacity. J. Financ. 1978, 33, 45–63.
[CrossRef]
23. Jensen, M.C.; Meckling, W.H. Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. J. Financ. Econ.
1976, 3, 305–360. [CrossRef]
24. Frank, M.Z.; Goyal, V.K. Capital Structure Decisions: Which Factors are Reliably Important? Financ. Manag. 2009, 38, 1–37.
[CrossRef]
25. Myers, S.C. Capital Structure Puzzle. J. Financ. 1984, 39, 575–592. [CrossRef]
26. Myers, S.C.; Majluf, N.S. Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions when Firms Have Information that Investors Do Not
Have. J. Financ. Econ. 1984, 13, 187–221. [CrossRef]
27. Warner, J.B. Bankruptcy, Absolute Priority, and the Pricing of Risky Debt Claims. J. Financ. Econ. 1977, 4, 239–276. [CrossRef]
28. Kurshev, A.; Strebulaev, I.A. Firm Size and Capital Structure. Q. J. Financ. (QJF) 2015, 5, 1–46. [CrossRef]
29. Martin, J.D.; Cox, S.H.; McMinn, R.D. The Theory of Finance. Evidence and Applications; The Dryden Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1988.
30. Boquist, J.A.; Moore, W.T. Inter-Industry Leverage Differences and the DeAngelo-Masulis Tax Shield Hypothesis. Financ. Manag.
1984, 13, 5–9. [CrossRef]
31. Titman, S.; Wessels, R. The Determinants of Capital Structure Choice. J. Financ. 1988, 43, 1–19. [CrossRef]
32. Rajan, R.G.; Zingales, L. What Do We Know about Capital Structure? Some Evidence from International Data. J. Financ. 1995, 50,
1421–1460. [CrossRef]
33. Fama, E.F.; French, K.R. Testing Trade-Off and Pecking Order Predictions about Dividends and Debt. Rev. Financ. Stud. 2002, 15,
1–33. [CrossRef]
34. Booth, L.; Aivazian, V.; Demirguc-Kunt, A.; Maksimovic, V. Capital Structures in Developing Countries. J. Financ. 2001, 56, 87–130.
[CrossRef]
35. Gonenc, H. Capital Structure Decisions under Micro Institutional Settings: The Case of Turkey. J. Emerg. Mark. Financ. 2003, 2,
57–82. [CrossRef]
36. Bauer, P. Determinants of Capital Structure: Empirical Evidence from the Czech Firms. Czech J. Econ. Financ. 2004, 54, 2–21.
37. Jiraporn, P.; Gleason, K.C. Capital Structure, Shareholder Rights, and Corporate Governance. J. Financ. Res. 2007, 30, 21–33.
[CrossRef]
38. Berk, A. The Role of Capital Market in Determining Capital Structure: Evidence from Slovenian Public and Private Corporations.
Acta Oeconomica 2007, 57, 123–155. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 28 of 29

39. Antoniou, A.; Guney, Y.; Paudyal, K. The Determinants of Debt Maturity Structure: Evidence from France, Germany and the UK.
Eur. Financ. Manag. 2006, 12, 161–194. [CrossRef]
40. Akhtar, S.; Oliver, B. Determinants of Capital Structure for Japanese Multinational and Domestic Corporations. Int. Rev. Financ.
2009, 9, 1–26. [CrossRef]
41. Psillaki, M.; Daskalakis, N. Are the Determinants of Capital Structure Country or Firm Specific? Small Bus. Econ. 2009, 33, 319–333.
[CrossRef]
42. Črnigoj, M.; Mramor, D. Determinants of Capital Structure in Emerging European Economies: Evidence from Slovenian Firms.
Emerg. Mark. Financ. Trade 2009, 45, 72–89. [CrossRef]
43. Avarmaa, M.; Hazak, A.; Männasoo, K. Capital structure formation in multinational and local companies in the Baltic States. Balt.
J. Econ. 2011, 11, 125–145. [CrossRef]
44. Hernádi, P.; Ormos, M. Capital Structure and Its Choice in Central and Eastern Europe. Acta Oeconomica 2012, 62, 229–263.
[CrossRef]
45. K˛edzior, M. Mi˛edzynarodowa Struktura Kapitału Przedsi˛ebiorstw; Uj˛ecie Rachunkowości i Finansów, C.H. Beck: Warszawa, Poland,
2011.
46. Jõeveer, K. Firm, country and macroeconomic determinants of capital structure: Evidence from transition economies. J. Comp.
Econ. 2013, 41, 294–308. [CrossRef]
47. Jaworski, J.; Czerwonka, L. Determinanty struktury kapitału przedsi˛ebiorstw notowanych na GPW w Warszawie. Sektor usług.
Ann. Univ. Mariae Curie-Skłodowska Sect. H Oeconomia 2017, 1, 133–142.
48. Kim, W.S.; Sorensen, E.H. Evidence on the Impact of the Agency Costs of Debt on Corporate Debt Policy. J. Financ. Quant. Anal.
1986, 21, 131–144. [CrossRef]
49. Grzywacz, J. Kapitał w Przedsi˛ebiorstwie i Jego Struktura; Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH w Warszawie: Warszawa, Poland, 2012.
50. Jaworski, J.; Czerwonka, L. Meta-study on relationship between macroeconomic and institutional environment and internal
determinants of enterprises’ capital structure. Econ. Res. Istraz. 2019, 2, 2614–2637. [CrossRef]
51. Berkman, A.N.; Iskenderoglu, O.; Karadeniz, E.; Ayyildiz, N. Determinants of Capital Structure: The Evidence from European
Energy Companies. Int. J. Bus. Adm. 2016, 7, 96. [CrossRef]
52. Koralun-Bereźnicka, J. Determinants of Capital Structure Across European Countries. In Contemporary Trends and Challenges in
Finance; Jajuga, K., Locarek-Junge, H., Orlowski, L.T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp.
199–209. ISBN 9783319762289.
53. Bradley, M.; Jarrell, G.A.; Kim, E.H. On the Existence of an Optimal Capital Structure: Theory and Evidence. J. Financ. 1984, 39,
857–878. [CrossRef]
54. Bhaduri, S. Determinants of Capital Structure Choice: A Study of the Indian Corporate Sector. Appl. Financ. Econ. 2002, 12,
655–665. [CrossRef]
55. Bancel, F.; Mittoo, U.R. Determinants of Capital Structure Choice. A Survey of European Firms. SSRN Electron. J. 2002, 33, 1–34.
[CrossRef]
56. Dietrich, D. Asset Tangibility and Capital Allocation. J. Corp. Financ. 2007, 13, 995–1007. [CrossRef]
57. De Miguel, A.; Pindado, J. Determinants of Capital Structure: New Evidence from Spanish Panel Data. J. Corp. Financ. 2001, 7,
77–99. [CrossRef]
58. Frank, M.Z.; Goyal, V.K. The Effect of Market Conditions on Capital Structure Adjustment. Financ. Res. Lett. 2004, 1, 47–55.
[CrossRef]
59. Gaud, P.; Hoesli, M.; Bender, A. Debt-Equity Choice in Europe. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 2007, 6, 201–222. [CrossRef]
60. Ghani, K.; Bukhari, S.H. Determinants of Capital Structure: A Case of Listed Energy Sector Companies in Pakistan. SSRN J. 2010,
7, 1–9. [CrossRef]
61. K˛edzior, M. Capital structure in EU selected countries—Micro and macro determinants. Argum. Oeconomica 2012, 28, 69–117.
62. Mokhova, N.; Zinecker, M. The determinants of capital structure: The evidence from the European Union. Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic.
Mendel. Brun. 2013, 1, 2533–2546. [CrossRef]
63. Ozkan, A. Determinants of Capital Structure and Adjustment to Long Run Target: Evidence from UK Company Panel Data. J.
Bus. Financ. Account. 2001, 28, 175–198. [CrossRef]
64. Panno, A. An Empirical Investigation on the Determinants of Capital Structure: The UK and Italian Experience. Appl. Financ.
Econ. 2003, 13, 97–112. [CrossRef]
65. Sierpińska-Sawicz, A. Cykl życia spółki a polityka dywidend i poziom realizowanych inwestycji, Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu
Szczecińskiego, Finanse, Rynki Finansowe. Ubezpieczenia 2015, 74, 183–202.
66. Kirmi, P.N. Relationship Between Capital Structure and Profitability, Evidence from Listed Energy and Petroleum Companies
Listed in Nairobi Securities Exchange. J. Investig. Manag. 2017, 6, 97.
67. Chakrabarti, A.; Chakrabarti, A. The Capital Structure Puzzle—Evidence from Indian Energy Sector. Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag.
2019, 13, 2–23. [CrossRef]
68. Shah, Q.; Shah, S.; Raja, U.; Naseem, I. Determinants of Capital Structure: Empirical Analysis of Fuel and Energy Sector of
Pakistan. Sci. Ser. Data Rep. Forthcom. 2012, 4, 95–111.
69. Nga, N.T.V.; Long, G.N. The Choice of Capital Structure: A Study on Energy Industry in a Developing Country. Accounting 2021,
7, 289–294. [CrossRef]
Energies 2023, 16, 4692 29 of 29

70. Grabińska, B.; K˛edzior, M.; K˛edzior, D.; Grabiński, K. The Impact of Corporate Governance on the Capital Structure of Companies
from the Energy Industry. The Case of Poland. Energies 2021, 14, 7412. [CrossRef]
71. Saeed, A. The Determinants of Capital Structure in Energy Sector; School of Management Blekinge Institute of Technology: Karlshamn,
Sweden, 2007.
72. Liu, Y.; Ning, X. Empirical Research of the Capital Structure Influencing Factors of Electric Power Listed Companies. Int. J. Mark.
Stud. 2009, 1, 43–49. [CrossRef]
73. Panicker, S. Capital Structure Determinants for Sustained Performance in The Energy Sector of India. Int. J. Res. Commer. Manag.
2013, 4, 77–81.
74. Mutwiri, A.K. The Effect of Capital Structure Decisions on Financial Performance of Firms Listed under Energy and Petroleum
Sector at the Nairobi Securities Exchange. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya, 2015.
75. Sinha, A. An Enquiry into Effect of Capital Structure on Firm Value: A Study of Power Sector Companies in India. Parikalpana
KIIT J. Manag. 2017, 13, 107. [CrossRef]
76. Škulánová, N. Impact of Selected Determinants on the Choice of Sources of Financing in the Energy Companies of the Visegrád
Group. Soc. Tyrim. Soc. Res. 2018, 41, 101–111. [CrossRef]
77. Šeligová, M. The impact of selected financial indicators related to the structure of funding sources on corporate liquidity in
Energy sector in the Czech Republic and slovak republic. Sci. Pap. Univ. Pardubic. Ser. D Fac. Econ. Adm. 2018, 25, 223–234.
78. Jaworski, J.; Czerwonka, L. Determinants of Enterprises’ Capital Structure in Energy Industry: Evidence from European Union.
Energies 2021, 14, 1871. [CrossRef]
79. Sierpińska, M. Determinants of mining companies’ capital structure. Gospod. Surowcami Miner. Miner. Resour. Manag. 2021, 3,
125–144. [CrossRef]
80. Marzec, J.; Pawłowska, M. Substytucja mi˛edzy kredytem kupieckim i bankowym w polskich przedsi˛ebiorstwach—Wyniki
empiryczne na podstawie danych panelowych. Bank Kredyt 2012, 3, 29–56.
81. Marzec, J.; Pawłowska, M. Racjonowanie kredytów a substytucja mi˛edzy kredytem kupieckim i bankowym—Badania na
przykładzie polskich przedsi˛ebiorstw. Materiały i Studia NBP 2011, 261, 1–86.
82. Polasik, M.; Marzec, J. Uwarunkowania akceptacji kart płatniczych w handlu i usługach detalicznych w Polsce. Bank Kredyt 2018,
49, 405–432.
83. Barburski, J. Struktury Finansowania Przedsi˛ebiorstw w Polsce na tle Wybranych Krajów Unii Europejskiej; Agencja Wydawniczo—
Poligraficzna ART.-Tekst dr inż; Mariusz Sierpień: Kraków, Poland, 2019.
84. Endri, E.; Rasyid Supeni, M.I.; Budiasih, Y.; Siahaan, M.; Razak, A.; Sudjono, S. Oil Price and Leverage for Mining Sector
Companies inIndonesia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2021, 11, 24–30. Available online: http:www.econjournals.com (accessed on 8
June 2021). [CrossRef]

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.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.