Legal form as a determinant of the evaluation of agricultural entities in Slovakia using the topsis method

Abstract

The agriculture represents one of the sectors of the economy, where economic differentiation is more than obvious. Different efficiency of agricultural entities has been a persistent phenomenon that depends on several objective and subjective factors. One of them is also legal form of agricultural enterprises. In Slovakia, the structure of farms is specific compared to almost any other member states of the European Union. The majority of agricultural land is framed by big farms. These farms with high acreage are usually either agricultural cooperative or Business Company. In the economic literature is a number of important studies identifying the advantages of cooperatives in comparison with other organizational forms, mainly business companies. The aim of this paper is evaluate the economic status of agricultural entities according the legal form using the TOPSIS method.

Full text

Volume V, Issue 1(9), Summer 2014
165
Quarterly
Volume VII
Issue 2(14)
Summer 2016
ISSN 2068 – 7729
Journal DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt
ASERS
J
ournal of Environmental Management
and Tourism

Volume VII, Issue 1(13), Summer 2016
166
Contents:
1
Monitoring the Air Pollution and Evaluation of the Impact of
Aluminium Production in Talco
Oqil RASULOV, Marian SCHWARZ
… 169
2
Development of Arctic Natural Resources by the Industrialized
Countries in the Context of Energy, Ecological and Economic
Security
Mihail Nikolaevich DUDIN, Nikolaj Vasilevich LYASNIKOV,
Vladimir Dmitriyevich SEKERIN, Anna Evgenevna GOROHOVA
Sergey Valeryevich BANK ,Vyacheslav Viktorovich BURLAKOV
… 175
3
A Model for Environmental Quarry System based on Particles,
Vibration and Noise (PVN) Components.
Komeil RAISIAN, Jamaiah YAHAYA, Aziz DERAMAN, Abdul Razak HAMDAN,
Izhar Abadi Ibrahim RAIS, Noor Zaitun YAHAYA
… 186
4
Institutional Aspects of Forecasting and Organizing Forests
Management
Saida Olegovna APSALYAMOVA, Bella Olegovna KHACHIR,
Oleg Zakireevich KHUAZHEV, Valeri Pavlovich ZYZA
… 195
5
Green Management in Hotels: a Supply-Side Analysis
Miriam MBASERA, Engelina du PLESSIS, Melville SAAYMAN,
Martinette KRUGER
… 206
6
Forest Policy Priorities: Forest Management Comparative Analysis
(Russia, Canada, Brazil and USA)
Svetlana Sergeevna NOSOVA, Rafael Envarovich ABDULOV,
Yulia Mihailovna MEDVEDEVA, Dmitry Valentinovich SHIRYAEV, Nadezhda
Alekseevna KAMENSKIKH
… 217
7
Improvement of the Institutional and Economic Mechanism of the
Region’s Natural Resource Potential Assessment
Sergey FROLOV, Valentyna SAMODAY, Yuliya MASHYNA
… 225
8
General Tendencies in Modern Economy: Sustainable
Development and Green Economy
Larisa Nikolaevna RUDNEVA, Irina Gennadievna PCHELINTSEVA, Maria
Andreevna GURYEVA
… 233
9
Residents’ Perception of Environmental Impacts of Tourism
Recreational Activities in Protected Area
Ravi SHARMA, Sushil CHAURASIA, A.K. BHATTACHARYA
… 241
10
Public-Private Partnership as a Tool of Public Tourism Sector
Administration
Olessya ZHIDKOBLINOVA, Yelena STAVBUNIK, Bagdat SPANOVA
... 253
Summer 2016
Volume VII, Issue
2(14)
Editor in Chief
Ramona PÎRVU
University of Craiova, Romania
Editorial Advisory Board
Omran Abdelnaser
University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Huong Ha
University of Newcastle, Singapore,
Australia
Harjeet Kaur
HELP University College, Malaysia
Janusz Grabara
Czestochowa University of Technology,
Poland
Vicky Katsoni
Techonological Educational Institute of
Athens, Greece
Sebastian Kot
Czestochowa University of Technology,
The Institute of Logistics and International
Management, Poland
Nodar Lekishvili
Tibilisi State University, Georgia
Andreea Marin-Pantelescu
Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest,
Romania
Piotr Misztal
The Jan Kochanowski University in
Kielce, Faculty of Management and
Administration, Poland
Chuen-Chee Pek
Nottingham University Business School,
Malaysia
Roberta De Santis
LUISS University, Italy
Fabio Gaetano Santeramo
University of Foggia, Italy
Dan Selişteanu
University of Craiova, Romania
Laura Ungureanu
Spiru Haret University, Romania
ASERS Publishing
http://www.asers.eu/asers-publishing
ISSN 2068 – 7729
Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
167
11
Affecting Factors on Rural Tourism Investment Analyzed through
Grounded Theory: The Case of the Villages of Larijan District, Amol,
Iran
Mehdi HESAM, Mohammad KAZEMI, Mohammad REZAZADEH
... 259
12
Tourism Destination Marketing: A Case Study of Puri Sea Beach in
Odisha, India
P.P. MOHANTY, H.B. ROUT
… 275
13
Educational Environment of University - A Model of International
Students’ Socio-Psychological Adaptation to the Ethno-Cultural
Characteristics of Society
Nataliya S. RADEVSKAYA, Elena K. VESELOVA, Marianna Ya.
DVORETSKAYA, Elena Yu. KORJOVA, Lira Yu. MONAKHOVA
… 291
14
Residents’ Perception of Educational Tourism in Jakarta, Indonesia
Roozbeh Babolian HENDIJANI
… 299
15
Development Prospects of the Brand of Tomsk
Olga Sergeevna KEKSEL, Alena Aleksandrovna IVCHIK,
Marina Aleksandrovna SHTANKO, Svetlana Valerievna AZAROVA,
Elena Valerievna SUKHUSHINA
… 310
16
On the Concept of Sustainable Recreational Use of Natural
Resources of Cross-Border Areas of Altai
Evgenia O. HARMS, Maria G. SUKHOVA, Nina A. KOCHEEVA,
Alexander I. MINAEV, Andrey V. KARANIN
… 317
17
Ecological Thinking and Certification of Hotel Service Providers in
Slovakia
Gejza Mikuláš TIMČÁK, Jana JABLONSKÁ, Ladislav MIXTAJ, Ľubomír ŠTRBA,
Ján DERCO, Erik WEISS
… 328
18
Increasing Community Environmental Awareness through
Geodiversity Conservation Activities at Ciletuh, Sukabumi, West
Java
Mohamad Sapari Dwi HADIAN, Ayu Krishna YULIWATI, Krishna Nur PRIBADI
... 348
19
Growth of Coastal Population: Likely Exposure to Sea Level Rise
and Associated Storm Surge Flooding in the Sultanate of Oman
Talal Al-AWADHI, E. RAMADAN, B.S. CHOUDRI, Yassine CHARABI
… 341
20
Legal Form as a Determinant of the Evaluation of Agricultural
Entities in Slovakia Using the Topsis Method
Ivana KRAVČÁKOVÁ VOZÁROVÁ, Rastislav KOTULIČ, Roman VAVREK
… 347
Summer 2016
Volume VII,
Issue 2(14)
Editor in Chief
Ramona PÎRVU
University of Craiova, Romania
Editorial Advisory Board
Omran Abdelnaser
University Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
Huong Ha
University of Newcastle, Singapore,
Australia
Harjeet Kaur
HELP University College, Malaysia
Janusz Grabara
Czestochowa University of Technology,
Poland
Vicky Katsoni
Techonological Educational Institute of
Athens, Greece
Sebastian Kot
Czestochowa University of Technology,
The Institute of Logistics and International
Management, Poland
Nodar Lekishvili
Tibilisi State University, Georgia
Andreea Marin-Pantelescu
Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest,
Romania
Piotr Misztal
The Jan Kochanowski University in
Kielce, Faculty of Management and
Administration, Poland
Chuen-Chee Pek
Nottingham University Business School,
Malaysia
Roberta De Santis
LUISS University, Italy
Fabio Gaetano Santeramo
University of Foggia, Italy
Dan Selişteanu
University of Craiova, Romania
Laura Ungureanu
Spiru Haret University, Romania
ASERS Publishing
http://www.asers.eu/asers-publishing
ISSN 2068 – 7729
Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
168
Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism is a young interdisciplinary research
journal, aimed to publish articles and original research papers that should contribute to the development
of both experimental and theoretical nature in the field of Environmental Management and Tourism
Sciences.
Journal will publish original research and seeks to cover a wide range of topics regarding
environmental management and engineering, environmental management and health, environmental
chemistry, environmental protection technologies (water, air, soil), pollution reduction at source and waste
minimization, energy and environment, modelling, simulation and optimization for environmental
protection; environmental biotechnology, environmental education and sustainable development,
environmental strategies and policies, etc. This topic may include the fields indicated above, but are not
limited to these.
Authors are encouraged to submit high quality, original works that discuss the latest developments
in environmental management research and application with the certain scope to share experiences and
research findings and to stimulate more ideas and useful insights regarding current best-practices and
future directions in environmental management.
Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism is indexed in SCOPUS, RePEC, CEEOL,
ProQuest, EBSCO and Cabell Directory databases.
All the papers will be first considered by the Editors for general relevance, originality and
significance. If accepted for review, papers will then be subject to double blind peer review.
Deadline for submission: 25th July 2016
Expected publication date: September 2016
Website: www.asers.eu/journals/jemt/
E-mail: jemt@asers.eu
To prepare your paper for submission, please see full author guidelines in the following file:
JEMT_Full_Paper_Template.doc, then send it via email at jemt@asers.eu.
Call for Papers
Issue 3(15) Fall 2016
Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
347
Legal Form as a Determinant of the Evaluation of Agricultural Entities in
Slovakia Using the Topsis Method
Ivana Kravčáková VOZÁROVÁ
University of Presov, Faculty of Management, Slovakia
ivana.vozarova@smail.unipo.sk
Rastislav KOTULIC
University of Presov, Faculty of Management, Slovakia
rastislav.kotulic@unipo.sk
Roman VAVREK
University of Presov, Faculty of Management, Slovakia
roman.vavrek@unipo.sk
Suggested Citation:
Vozárová, Kravčáková I., Kotulic, R., Vavrek, R. (2016). Legal form as a determinant of the evaluation of
agricultural entities in Slovakia using the TOPSIS method, Journal of Environmental Management and
Tourism, (Volume VII, Summer), 2(14): 348-356. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v7.2(14).20.
Available from: http://www.asers.eu/ journals/jemt/curent-issue
Article’s History:
Received May, 2016; Revised May, 2016; Accepted June, 2016.
2016. ASERS Publishing. All rights reserved.
Abstract:
The agriculture represents one of the sectors of the economy, where economic differentiation is more
than obvious. Different efficiency of agricultural entities has been a persistent phenomenon that depends on
several objective and subjective factors. One of them is also legal form of agricultural enterprises. In Slovakia,
the structure of farms is specific compared to almost any other member states of the European Union. The
majority of agricultural land is framed by big farms. These farms with high acreage are usually either agricultural
cooperative or Business Company. In the economic literature is a number of important studies identifying the
advantages of cooperatives in comparison with other organizational forms, mainly business companies.
The aim of this paper is evaluate the economic status of agricultural entities according the legal form
using the TOPSIS method.
Keywords: business company, agricultural cooperative, legal form, TOPSIS method.
JEL Classification: Q13, L25, M21.
1. Introduction
Agriculture, including farming, forestry, fisheries and livestock is the main source of employment and
income in rural area. The agriculture represents one of the sectors of the economy, where economic
differentiation is more than obvious. Therefore, the economic differentiation of agricultural enterprises was
analyzed using several economic indicators from the perspective of several criteria, as well as natural conditions,
size of the agricultural enterprise measured by the area of agricultural land or the legal form of the business.
Just the last criterion which represents legal form of business will be the subject of our analysis. According to
Gozora (1996) the decision about the legal form requires a more systematic consideration. The decisive criteria
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v7.2(14).20

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
348
in the choice of legal form are as follows: the size of company management, financing, guarantee and risk, the
possibility of obtaining credit, tax burden, permanent existence of the company.
2. Literature review
EU countries are largely heterogeneous group. This heterogeneity is given by historical development, as
well as geographic localization, or cultural and social specifics. Main aim of European Union is to realize social
and environmentally sustainable economic development. One of the tools to achieve that state is effort to
increase efficiency of economies (Adamišin et al. 2013). Chrastinová (2008) argued that the differentiated
efficiency in agriculture has been a persistent phenomenon that depends on several objective and subjective
factors applicable on agricultural enterprises. In addition to financial efficiency, we can measure also other types
of efficiency such as technical or allocated. One of the possible approaches in efficiency measurement is using
technical efficiency developed by Sojková et al. (2008). According to Grznár and Szabo (2002), there exist
decisive factors for the success of agricultural enterprises and their prosperity is assessed by the extent of the
coverage of costs incurred, the reproduction rate of production resources or the amount of personal wages.
The transformation of the economy from the centrally planned economy into the market economy was
accompanied by the decrease of the GDP and industrial production in practically all the countries of the Central
and Eastern Europe, in Slovakia too (Matejková et al. 2008). The decrease was caused by a number of factors,
such as the deformed structure of the economy, the loss of the former CMEA markets or trade liberation.
The entry into the new market environment after 1990 marked the beginning of complicated structural,
economic and social changes for agricultural companies that brought a measurable improvement in only few
aspects of the technical performance and competitiveness (Bielik and Rajčániová 2004). New forms of
enterprises were created, the number of subjects increased and their average concentration decreased. After
Slovakia joined the European Union and with the removal of borders between EU member countries, there are
in one hand major new opportunities in the common market, but on the other hand, the farms have to face the
hard competitive pressure. (Mura et al. 2012)
The farms in the EU countries are distinguishable by three main factors: the structural characteristics,
their financial characteristics and productive orientation and the importance of subsidies on the farms. In
Slovakia, the structure of farms is specific compared to almost any other member states of the European Union.
The majority of agricultural land is farmed by big farms. These farms with high acreage usually have two main
legal forms. On the one hand are cooperatives which existed before 1989. On the other hand, at the time of the
transformation process was part of them replaced by business companies (Tóth et al. 2014, Lososová and
Zdeněk 2014). The same approach is indicated by the Statistical office of the Slovak Republic, which in defining
the legal forms of Slovak agricultural entities distinguishes: business companies (limited liability companies,
general commercial partnerships, and joint - stock companies), cooperatives, state-owned enterprises and
contributory organizations. However, the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic reported the agricultural
production only for business companies and cooperatives, which means that state-owned enterprises and
contributory organizations already are not currently relevant legal form of Slovak agriculture.
The choice of organization structure is a very important decision for agricultural entities. In the economic
literature, there are a number of important studies identifying the advantages of cooperatives in comparison with
other organizational forms, mainly business companies (Némethová 2010, Bijman et al. 2012, Movsisyan 2013).
Láziková and Bandlerová (2006) state that the agricultural cooperatives have successfully defended their
position on agricultural land also among newly formed agricultural enterprises, such as joint stock companies,
limited liability companies or self-employed farmers. The diversity in their management is evident in the long
term, despite the fact that the transformed agricultural cooperatives are trying to keep the trend alongside
business companies.
The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA 2013) defines a cooperative as the autonomous association
of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs through a jointly owned
and democratically controlled enterprise. The persons who voluntarily unite to form a cooperative are usually
referred to as members or member owners, and one of the key attributes of membership is active participation
in the activity of the cooperative (whether economic, business, or social). A cooperative is a legal entity and in a
certain sense it is an analogue of a shareholder corporation.
According Bijman et al. (2012) the agricultural cooperatives play an important role in helping agricultural
entities to capture a higher share of the value added in the food supply chain in all member states. According to

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
349
them the main key functions of all cooperatives are improving the bargaining power of their members and letting
members benefit from economies of scale. In addition, the agricultural cooperatives are reducing market risks,
reducing transaction costs, providing access to resources, and strengthening their competitive position through
product innovation and guaranteeing food quality and safety. Bijman et al. (2012) also argue that a large number
of cooperatives have expanded their activities in downstream stages of the food chain, thus strengthening their
customer and consumer orientation by enhancing efforts in marketing, product innovation and customization.
Valentinov says (2007) that the role of agricultural cooperatives is shown to help overcome these limitations in
order to take advantage of the transaction-cost economizing properties of family farms.
The agricultural cooperatives have an important role in supporting small agricultural producers. They
promote their members economically and socially and create sustainable rural employment through business
models that are more resilient to economic and environmental shocks. Agricultural cooperative as a legal form
offers to small agricultural producers the opportunities to access markets, and provide them with a range of
services such as better access to natural resources, information, communication, technologies, credit, training
and warehouses. They also facilitate small producers’ participation in decision-making at all levels, support them
to secure land use rights and to negotiate better terms for engagement in contract farming and better prices for
agricultural inputs. (IFAD 2011)
Sedik and Lerman (2013) distinguish between:
 production cooperatives, in which members are jointly engaged in the production process.
 service cooperatives, which are the largest and most typical category of cooperatives. These are
cooperatives that provide services to their members, who continue to carry out all production activities
independently on their own.
 consumer cooperatives are trading firms that sell consumer goods primarily to their members at
advantageous prices. The largest segment of consumer cooperatives is cooperative food stores and
supermarkets.
In the first years of transformation, the new emerging business companies had the advantage that they
were adjusted for various inefficient assets and in particular old debts in the transition process, which have
created better starting position for further development. (Láziková and Bandlerová 2006)
According to Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in Slovak Republic (MARD 2011), the
business companies have achieved a higher effectiveness in the economic result and higher creation of added
value as the agricultural cooperatives. An important item of yields in business companies are revenues from the
sale of goods, which are many times higher than in the agricultural cooperatives.
In Slovakia, higher volume of investment support was allocated to agricultural business companies. In
contrast, to agricultural cooperatives were provided more non-investment subsidies. There persists a higher
employment rate and thus a higher burden of labour costs. The business companies are more indebted, which
demonstrates their greater economic solvency to banks with regard to making a profit, and thus repayment
particularly longer-term loans, which are not covered by support from the EU.
The differences between these legal forms are caused by also the impacts of establishment of the
business companies, which were mostly comprised from the creditworthy parts of agricultural cooperatives
property without adequate acceptance of deposits from banks and business partners, as well as without share
compensation. (MARD 2011)
In our study, we examined two forms of business companies namely, limited liability companies and joint-
stock companies. As we have already mentioned above, other legal forms of business companies do not have
relevant position at the Slovak market. Limited liability companies (LLCs) are recognized as a legal structure in
almost all states; however, tax and liability treatment is different across all states. A limited liability company is
the most commonly used legal form in Slovakia.
The second frequent type of the business companies in agriculture is joint-stock company. In 2014, the
total number of joint-stock companies in agriculture represented about 10% of the total number of all agricultural
companies in Slovakia.

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
350
3. Methodology and data
The aim of this paper is evaluate the economic status of agricultural entities according the legal form
using the TOPSIS method. We analyzed and compared two groups of agricultural entities: agricultural
cooperatives (AC) and business companies (BC).
The data were ensured by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development of the Slovak Republic in the
form of Information sheets, which we have obtained from a company Radela Ltd. The data were analyzed for
the period of 2005-2014. The evaluated file included the subjects according following Table 1.
Table 1 - Research sample
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
AC
578
566
545
538
544
507
526
517
503
487
BC
832
798
819
779
839
798
886
963
980
1000
SR
1410
1364
1364
1317
1383
1305
1412
1480
1483
1487
Source: Own processing.
We quantified the performance of selected companies on the basis of TOPSIS method. Due to the
quantification of efficiency of the selected entities have been selected these ratio indicators that characterize
profitability, activity, liquidity and stability of Slovak agricultural enterprises: Profitability indicators, ROA – Return
on total assets, ROS - Return on sales, Activity indicators, DPO - Days payable outstanding, Liquidity indicators,
QR - Quick ratio, Stability indicators, SFR - Self-financing ratio, ICR - Interest coverage ratio.
The calculation of TOPSIS technique is realized by Vavrek, Kotulič and Adamišin (2015), who describe
a total of 7 following steps:
 Drawing up the criterion matrix:

























mnmjmmm
inijiii
nj
nj
nj
xxxxA
xxxxA
xxxxA
xxxxA
XXXX
D
......
:::::
......
:::::
......
......
......
21
21
2222212
1112111
21
where: Ai = i-th alternative and Xij = j-th value of the parameter achieved by the i-th alternative.
 Drawing up the normalized matrix by the formula:


j
jijijij xxr 1
2
/
,
(3.1)
 Assigning of weights to individual parameters
ijijij rwv .
,
(3.2)
where: vij = weight of normalized value and wij = weight of parameter.
 Identifying the PIS and NIS alternatives. These alternatives consist of real achieved values and in most
cases these are hypothetical alternatives:
)min(),max( ijjijjwDwH 
,
(3.3)
where: Hj = PIS, Dj = NIS.

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
351
 Calculating the distance from these alternatives:
2/1
1
2,)( 




 

k
jjijiHwd
,
2/1
1
2,)( 




 

k
jjijiDwd
(3.4)
where: d+ = distance from PIS alternative
d- = distance from NIS alternative.
 Calculating the relative distance from the PIS alternative:




ii
i
idd d
c
(3.5)
where: ci = relative distance from the PIS alternative.
 Creation of ranking of the alternatives on the basis of the relative distance from the PIS alternative.
As part of TOPSIS technique, the assigning of weights to individual parameters plays an important role
the weights could not be determined exactly. Therefore, in the application of TOPSIS techniques are all
monitored parameters equivalent and the weight of each parameter is vi = 0.1666666666.
The normal distribution of data was verified by the Shapiro-Wilk test and independence of the selections
as well as the homoscedasticity was tested by the Levene's test. In the case of confirmation of both assumptions
was the difference between the legal forms for the whole period tested by ANOVA. The analysis processing was
realized in the computer programs STATISTICA and STATGRAPHICS.
4. Results and discussion
The main purpose of the research was to evaluate the effectiveness of farming of individual legal forms
of agricultural enterprises using TOPSIS technique. TOPSIS technique evaluates the variants using the relative
distance from the PIS alternative based on established parameters. Because in this study we evaluated two
alternatives (AC and BC), their result is determined identified following differences and the absolute difference
of monitored indicators.
The differences between the legal forms were confirmed at the level of 6 parameters. In the group of
agricultural cooperatives can be observed almost perfect correlation between Return on sales and Return on
total assets and their highly correlation with Interest coverage ratio. An interesting conclusion is very strong
negative correlation between the Self-financing ratio and Days payable outstanding, i.e. that the enterprises with
a higher level of self-financing also repay their obligations in a shorter time interval.
Source: Own processing.
Figure 1 - Correlation matrix of parameters for AC, 2005 - 2014

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
352
Business companies have shown different rates of dependence among the monitored parameters as
agricultural cooperatives. Significantly different situation is documented by the correlation matrix of business
companies (Figure 2). Return on sales and Quick ratio linearly correlated with no parameter. Return on total
assets confirmed its relationship with Interest coverage ratio and Self-financing ratio. An interesting conclusion
is negative correlation between the Return on total assets and Days payable outstanding also as between Days
payable outstanding and Interest coverage ratio.
Source: Own processing.
Figure 2 - Correlation matrix of parameters for BC, 2005 - 2014
Presented correlation matrices show the differences in the management of legal forms of agricultural
companies in the Slovak Republic and also confirm the above identified differences between the parameters
that were monitored in this analysis. In each of the 10 analyzed years, the business companies achieved better
overall assessment based on the monitored parameters. The most significant difference can be seen in 2010;
on the contrary, the most balanced management of these legal forms was in 2012.
Source: Own processing.
Figure 3 - Results of TOPSIS technique - legal forms, 2005 – 2014
Because one result is determined by the other and complementary their sum is 1, the normal distribution
of both groups is the same (WPD = WOS = 0,913; p = 0,294). The same fact is a cause of full compliance of
their variance, which is confirmed by the Levene's test (LE = 0; p = 1). On the basis of results of one-way analysis
of variance, we can state the difference between the management of legal forms (Table 2) evaluated by TOPSIS
technique.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
AC 0,2750,3210,3860,325 0,37 0,1420,2840,4280,1610,391
BC 0,7250,6790,6140,675 0,63 0,8580,7160,5720,8390,609

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
353
Table 2 - ANOVA - comparison of legal forms by TOPSIS technique, 2005 – 2014
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Square
F-Ratio
P-Value
Between groups
0,734978
1
0,73497800
80,18
0,0000
Within groups
0,165008
18
0,00916712
TOTAL (Corr.)
0,899986
19
Source: Own processing.
Conclusion
On the basis of results of one-way analysis of variance and evaluation of TOPSIS technique, we can
state the difference between the management of these legal forms. Our analysis confirmed the differences in
economic performance of agricultural entities according to legal forms. We can also argue that the legal form
represents a factor that affects the economic performance of enterprises in the agricultural sector.
Adamišin and Kotulič (2013) argue, whether it is just the legal status of management that determines to
such a significant extent the difference in economic performance of subjects. A higher economic performance
of business companies can be determined not only by different approaches to the management of subjects, but
as well by a better starting situation in the past (contrary to cooperatives), or even the potentially inconveniently
selected basis for comparison of economic performance (agricultural land).
There are also other factors, which have a direct impact on the economic performance and efficiency of
agricultural enterprises. These factors have a direct impact to a limited extent, but this does not mean that we
should not deal with them, for example, the effective management of the agricultural entity, natural and climatic
conditions or legal and legislative framework and others. Kadlečíková et al. (2015) argue that a meaningful factor
for business success of agricultural companies is a strategic management. Strategic management is also
important in relation to agricultural and food production; particularly in connection to adaptation to climate
changes and in ensuring the food security resources required for a steadily growing human population.
Acknowledgement
Supported by the Cultural and Educational Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research
and Sport of the Slovak Republic (Project KEGA No. 035PU-4/2016 on the topic: Microeconomics for managers
- innovation of structure, content and the method of teaching the subject; Project KEGA No. 032PU-4/2014 on
the topic: Preparation of educational materials for the first level of study programme Environmental Management
and follow-up study programme Environmental Management) and by the Scientific Grant Agency of the Ministry
of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences (Project
VEGA No. 1/0139/16 on the topic: Analysis of determinants and factors affecting the efficiency and
competitiveness of entities working the soil in the Slovak Republic).
References
[1] Adamišin, P. et al. 2013. Degree of similarity identification of status and development of EU countries'
energetic efficiency using the methods of cluster analysis. Paper presented at the International
Multidisciplinary Scientific Geo Conference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management: SGEM,
June 16–22, in Sofia, Bulgaria. DOI: 10.5593/SGEM2013/BE5.V2/S21.009
[2] Adamišin, P., Kotulič, R. 2013. Evaluation of the agrarian businesses results according to their legal form.
Agricultural Economics – Czech, 59 (9): 396-402.
[3] Bielik, P., Rajčániová, M. (2004). Competitiveness analysis of agricultural enterprises in Slovakia. Agricultural
Economics – Czech, 50 (12): 556–560.
[4] Bijman, J. et al. (2012). Support for Farmers' Cooperatives (Final Report). Wageningen University.
[5] Chrastinová, Z. 2008. Economic differentiation in Slovak agriculture. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 54
(11): 536-545.
[6] Gozora, V. 1996. Podnikový manažment [Corporate management]. SPU Nitra.
[7] Grznár, M., Szabo, Ľ. 2002. Niektoré faktory úspešnosti poľnohospodárskych podnikov SR [Some success
factors of agricultural enterprises in the Slovak Republic]. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 48 (8): 367–371.

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
354
[8] Kadlečíková, M. et al. 2015. The impact of strategic management on selected financial and economic results
of agricultural enterprises operating in the Slovak Republic. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae
Mendelianae Brunensis, 63 (5): 1679-1686. DOI: 10.11118/actaun201563051679
[9] Lazíková, J., and Bandlerová, A. 2006. Postavenie poľnohospodárskych družstiev na Slovensku v Európskej
únií [The role of agricultural cooperatives in Slovakia within the European Union]. Paper presented at the
International meeting on the theme: Selected Questions of the agrarian law of the European Union III:
Entrepreneurship and conditions for its further development in the EU, November 24–25, in Podkylava,
Slovakia.
[10] Lososová, J., and Zdeněk, R. 2014. Key factors affecting the profitability of farms in the Czech Republic.
Agris On-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 6 (1): 21-36.
[11] Matejková, E., Qineti, A., and Serenčéš, R. 2008. Macroeconomic aspects of the development of Slovak
regions in the post-accession period. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 54 (8): 367–375.
[12] Movsisyan, S. 2013. The Role of Cooperatives in the development of Agriculture in Armenia, Asian
Countries and EU. Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.
[13] Mura, L. et al. 2012. An analysis of selected aspects of international business in Slovak dairies in the EU
framework. Mljekarstvo, 62 (3): 219-226.
[14] Némethová, J. 2010. Types of agricultural enterprises in the high production region in Slovakia (sample
area of the Nitra district). Agricultural Economics – Czech, 56 (1): 25-31.
[15] Sedik, D., and Lerman, Z. 2013. Agricultural cooperative development in former soviet countries: the case
of Ukraine and Kazakhstan. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
[16] Sojková, Z., Kropková, Z., and Benda, V. 2008. Slovak agricultural farms in different regions – comparison
of efficiency. Agricultural Economics – Czech, 54 (4): 158-165.
[17] Tóth, M., Lančarič, D., Savov, R. 2014. Which legal form is a key to success in Slovak agriculture? Paper
presented at the international meeting on the theme: 142nd EAAE Seminar Growing Success? Agriculture
and Rural Development in an enlarged EU, May 29–30, in Budapest, Hungary.
[18] Valentinov, V. 2007. Why are cooperatives important in agriculture? An organizational economics
perspective. Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (1): 55-69. DOI: 10.1017/S1744137406000555
[19] Vavrek, R., Kotulič, R., and Adamišin, P. 2015. Evaluation of Municipalities Management with the TOPSIS
Technique Emphasising on the Impact of Weights of Established Criteria. Lex localis - Journal of Local
Self-Government, 13 (2): 249-264.
*** International Co-operative Alliance. Cooperative identity, values & principles. Available at:
http://ica.coop/en/what-co-op/co-operative-identity-values-principles
*** Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Green Report Brochure 2011. Available at:
http://www.mpsr.sk/sk/index.php?navID=122&id=5214
*** The International Fund for Agricultural Development. Agricultural cooperatives: Paving the way for food
security and rural development. Available at: http://www.ifad.org/english/institutions/yic_flyer.pdf

Journal of Environment Management and Tourism
355
Web: www.asers.eu
URL: http://www.asers.eu/asers-publishing
E-mail: asers@asers.eu
ISSN 2068 – 7729
Journal DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14505/jemt
ASERS