<![CDATA[Financial sustainability depends on liquidity and cash generation as well as reported profit, yet technology narratives often omit comparable expenditure and operational return measures. This study examines technology investment disclosure, selling cost efficiency and financial sustainability in Kimia Farma and Phapros through a documentary longitudinal comparison. Public reports provide historical context for 2021–2025 and detailed financial comparisons for 2024–2025. Neither case supplies a consistent, separately identified technology investment series suitable for estimating an investment return. Kimia Farma’s current ratio rises from 0.48 to 0.56 and its operating cash flow margin improves, but its net result remains negative. Phapros’ current ratio rises from 0.95 to 2.29, while operating cash flow decreases despite a revenue rebound and a return to profit. Both selling expense ratios decline, but their compositions and revenue denominators differ. The contribution is a multidimensional reconciliation of commercial cost burden, liquidity and cash generation, with undisclosed technology spending retained as missing. The results show that recovery in one indicator does not establish a general digital investment effect or durable financial sustainability.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
