Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Systems 2023, 11, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11020071 www.mdpi.com/journal/systems
Article
Disparities in the Implementation of Risk Management in the
SMEs
Katarína Buganová, Mária Hudáková, Jana Šimíčková and Erika Mošková *
Department of Crisis Management, Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Zilina,
010 26 Žilina, Slovakia
* Correspondence: erika.moskova@uniza.sk (E.M.)
Abstract: This article aims to determine the disparities between SMEs in management and risk man-
agement depending on the type of management, age, and size of SMEs in the business environment
of Slovakia. The case study was conducted in 2019/2020 on a sample of 362 owners and top manag-
ers of SMEs. The hypotheses were verified using statistical methods—the Pearson chi-squared test
and the Z-test. The results show that SMEs are more involved in risk management than microenter-
prises. Process-driven SMEs largely perceive market risk. Medium-sized enterprises perceive per-
sonnel risk more intensely than microenterprises and small enterprises. Not even one out of every
five owners or top managers can manage risks, and more than 15% of SMEs do not conduct any risk
management activities. Financial reserves and insurance are the most used risk reduction measures
in SMEs. The purpose of the survey is to strengthen the resilience of SMEs and to find out the causes
of the weakening of resilience concerning the investigated risk factors. The creation of integrated
management systems presupposes the inclusion of the risk management system among other man-
agement systems. By implementing risk management, it is possible to increase the efficiency of man-
agement systems.
Keywords: disparities; management system; risk; risk management; SMEs; systems
1. Introduction
The current business environment is constantly changing and depends on various
conditions and requirements. Risk has become a crucial part of enterprises and has af-
fected a wide range of organizations in all sectors [1]. Every business that strives to sur-
vive, develop, and be sustainable must be prepared to face all the challenges posed by
today’s turbulent and uncertain times [2]. The development of small and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs) can also be seriously threatened by financial constraints [3]. All types
and sizes of businesses face external and internal risks that make it uncertain whether
their business will be successful [2]. More than 70% of SMEs struggle with a lack of sus-
tainability and do not survive more than five years [4].
Entrepreneurship plays an important role in the development of the economy and
society [5]. Today, SMEs are increasingly important for job creation and economic growth
at the national and European levels. Due to the growing complexity of SMEs, their im-
portance for world economies is also growing [6]. Not only do SMEs contribute to a coun-
try’s economic development, but their level of success also acts as a measure of the effec-
tiveness of government policy in developing an entrepreneurial culture in the economy
[7]. SMEs represent 99% of enterprises in the European Union (EU). They provide two-
thirds of the jobs in the private sector and contribute to more than half of the total benefits
created by businesses in the EU.
SMEs are considered key economic drivers in the world and account for the vast
majority of global economic performance [8]. For that, promoting the sustainability of
Citation: Buganová, K.;
Hudáková, M.; Šimíčková, J.;
Mošková, E. Disparities in the
Implementation of Risk
Management in the SMEs.
Systems 2023, 11, 71. https://doi.org
/10.3390/systems11020071
Received: 10 January 2023
Revised: 25 January 2023
Accepted: 27 January 2023
Published: 30 January 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://cre-
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Systems 2023, 11, 71 2 of 20
SMEs is vital to the entire economy. Risks are also a very important part of the business
environment; if risks are well managed, enterprises can provide a higher level of compet-
itiveness and sustainability [9]. Risk management is intended as a process of identifying
and assessing risk and applying specific methods to reduce risks to an acceptable level
[10]. Effective risk management is a key element of any successful management strategy.
Risk management is a systematic process that helps organizations understand the nature
of risk and the appropriate ways to assess and control it [11]. Undoubtedly, the biggest
obstacle in effective risk management is the fact that it applies to future events that cannot
be predicted by default. Decision-makers can only try to estimate the probability of their
occurrence and the extent of their consequences and plan preventive measures on this
basis [12].
The aim of the article is to identify the disparities between SMEs in management and
risk management depending on the type of management, age and size of SMEs in the
business environment of the Slovak Republic. The entrepreneurial environment in the Slo-
vak Republic was selected due to the preferred area of focus of the authors, in which they
orientate themselves and devote themselves also within the framework of other surveys.
The purpose of the survey is to strengthen the resilience of SMEs and to fin d out the causes
of the weakening of resilience concerning the investigated risk factors. The authors of the
article expect statistically significant disparities in SME management with regard to the
type of SME management, age and size of the enterprise (hereinafter referred to as the
research criteria).
The research problem is to find answers to research questions and to strengthen ex-
isting findings to bridge the knowledge gap in solving problems focused on the ability of
SMEs to manage business risks in specific conditions and to specify key risks for SMEs
and opportunities to reduce them.
The benefit of the article is that it performs comparative analysis of the perception of
management and risk management among selected groups of owners and top managers
according to the type of management, age, and size of the enterprise. We consider the
solution of this issue to be very important from the point of view of the sustainability of
SMEs in order to secure the economy within countries in the world as well as the world
economy. The risks faced by SMEs can affect their operability, which can mean a disrup-
tion of the world economy and a slowdown in market activities. Several different surveys
have already been carried out within this issue, but the significance of the study is to em-
phasize the importance of solving the given issue for the enrichment of theoretical contri-
butions as well as the highlighting of shortcomings and gaps in business in various areas.
The structure of the remainder of this article has the following form. The next section
of the article contains the theoretical basis of the defined issues of risk management and
business management. The results of case studies focused on disparities between selected
groups of respondents in Central European countries are also presented. The methodol-
ogy presents a detailed description of the primary data collection; its time; and the content,
technical and quantitative characteristics. This section also contains the methods and de-
mographic structure of a selected sample of SMEs. The next section shows the most im-
portant results aimed at evaluating statistical hypotheses and includes case studies con-
ducted in the past. The final section contains a summary of the results, the limitations of
the research, and the direction and focus of the future scientific publishing activities of the
authors.
2. Theoretical Background
Currently, the trend is to connect individual management systems and create a joint
plant. The efforts of enterprises point to the current trend, which forces enterprises to con-
nect individual management systems and thereby create a common base. At the same
time, this creates pressure from various interested parties to meet the requirements of
management systems [13]. The creation of integrated management systems presupposes
the inclusion of the risk management system among other management systems.
Systems 2023, 11, 71 3 of 20
Many small businesses are unable to support risk management activities due to a
lack of resources and capabilities [14]. Krüger [15] published that SME owners have a risk
management concept; however, their knowledge is generally limited to crisis manage-
ment compared to best practice standards. Because they lack managerial complexity ex-
pertise or the resources necessary to effectively manage risk, Torkkeli [16] contends that
most SME owners rely on their personal experience rather than on comprehensive and
well-structured standards such as those established by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). Because some SME owners rely on their own experience, in many
cases, they perform unsystematically more functions in the business, leading to the une-
qual application of risk responses in the organization [17].
In Slovakia, the ISO 31000 Risk Management standard is currently most commonly
used, and from the point of view of risk assessment techniques, the IEC 31010:2019 Risk
management—Risk assessment techniques standard is applied. Considering the needs of
SMEs, the ISO 31000 standard—Risk management—A practical guide for SMEs has been
created, which gives hands-on guidance on how to make the most of ISO 31000:2009, the
International Standard on risk management processes, and integrate good practices in
both their strategic decisions and their day-to-day operations [18,19].
According to Hudáková [19], in combination with the quality management system
(ISO 9001), the environmental management system (ISO 14001), and the occupational
health and safety system (ISO 45001) in connection with the risk management system (ISO
31000), which together form an integrated management system, it is possible to achieve
the integration of management systems and they will become a functional management
tool (Figure 1). Organizations will create a system to ensure risk prevention within the
organization’s activities.
Figure 1. Integration of risk management and management systems for quality, OHS, and environ-
ment.
The application of the risk management process to large enterprises is related to their
business interests, strategic goals as well as background and their very activities, etc. Con-
sidering SMEs, standards are not often used in this area. They are used to a limited extent,
as everything depends on the possibilities and resources of the companies themselves, as
well as their field of focus. Therefore, even the use of standards in the area of risk man-
agement within SMEs has a recommendatory nature [19].
An increase in losses and the emergence of risks could cause a disruption in the op-
erability of SMEs, which would also undermine the very sustainability of SMEs. SMEs
play an important role in the development of the economy and society. The ideal goal of
risk management is to minimize excessive risks to achieve more favorable results. Mini-
mizing excessive risks is highly beneficial for established enterprises and especially criti-
cal for SMEs, especially in the first five years of their operations.
Quality
ISO 9001
OHS system
ISO 45 001
Risk
Management
Environment
ISO 14 001
Systems 2023, 11, 71 4 of 20
With regard to the Visegrad Group (V4) whose countries belong to the EU (Slovakia,
the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary), the V4 countries have adopted the definition
of SMEs used in the EU. If the definition is based on European legislation, it is first neces-
sary to define an enterprise. An enterprise is considered “any entity engaged in an eco-
nomic activity, regardless of its legal form.” The law defines microenterprises and SMEs
as a group of enterprises with the following characteristics [8]:
• Employ less than 250 people;
• Their annual turnover does not exceed EUR 50 million;
• Their total annual balance sheet does not exceed EUR 43 million.
SMEs provide approximately 72% of the total employment in Slovakia, 67% of the
total employment in the Czech Republic, 69% of the total employment in Hungary, and
68% of the total employment in Poland [20].
Many SMEs, due to their small size, lack of resources, tendency to independently
manage complex activities, and limited understanding of risk management, resort to risk
prevention. Thus, these SMEs may lose opportunities due to unstructured crisis manage-
ment, which may exacerbate losses or transfer risks in liquidity-intensive situations
[21,22]. An enterprise existing in an uncertain and ever-changing environment should be
able to adapt in order to some compliance of its own objectives with the environmental
conditions that may be a source of risk [23].
Risk management has become more important in recent decades. Businesses are re-
alizing that their internal systems are more vulnerable without risk analysis and the im-
plementation of appropriate risk management methods [24]. Risk management, especially
in the area of SME management, is proving to be an important challenge [25]. Kovaľová
[26] give the main reasons for the high vulnerability of SMEs to risks, such as outdated
technology, low level of experience, insufficient capital, lack of managerial capacities, low
utilization of existing capacities, and insufficient financial security of resources. Accord-
ing to the authors [27], research that focuses on risk analysis, risk identification, and the
strategy of risk management implementation, as well as controls in the risk management
process for SMEs, is needed. SMEs benefit from approaches that integrate risk manage-
ment into other management processes, e.g., business or quality management, and strate-
gic planning. Risk management is one of the most important practices affecting the com-
petitiveness of SMEs and their innovation [28]. By implementing risk management, it is
possible to increase the efficiency of these management systems. In addition to managers,
risk management tools are also used by operating staff to ensure control over business
processes that enable the smooth running of an enterprise [29]. According to Verbano and
Venturini [30] and Kozubíková [31], risk management is addressed in large enterprises,
with priority given to the manufacturing and financial sectors. According to Henschel
[32], the size of the risk depends on the industrial sector. According to Lima [33], there are
only a few studies on risk management in SMEs, and the general understanding of risk
management in SMEs is not clear, especially for research, implementation, and practice.
It is precisely in the area of risk management that the emphasis is placed on not cre-
ating self-serving isolated systems, but on connecting it with the systems used by the or-
ganization. The risk management system is based on the assumption that risks (including
their interrelationships and interactions) are assessed continuously, holistically, proac-
tively, and systematically in the organization, and at the same time opportunities for pro-
cess improvement are identified [34]. According to Hudáková [19], it cannot be a sequence
of random activities of individual steps, but a continuous process with an established link
to all operational activities. The risk management system is therefore a logically and func-
tionally organized set of risk management elements and entities operating in a specific
environment, connected by links and relationships of mutual conditionality, dependence,
and continuity [35].
Systems 2023, 11, 71 5 of 20
Part of the risk management system is the determination of the overall direction (pol-
icy), strategy, and goals of risk management. It is also necessary to harmonize the frame-
work, principles, and structure, as well as to define the procedures and methods of the
risk management process. Assigning responsibility to specific persons for activities in risk
management is of great importance. Responsible persons (risk owners) must have clearly
defined roles and authorities for all risk management processes. Last but not least, it is
necessary to monitor all components of the risk management system, evaluate their effec-
tiveness and efficiency, and constantly look for opportunities to improve them. The plan-
ning of the risk management system includes the commitment of top management and
executives, the risk policy, the roles and responsibilities of risk managers for specific risks,
and the management of resources in the field of risk management, etc. [13,19].
There is no doubt that organizations that have risk-related practices can mitigate the
volatility of their revenues and reduce the impacts of financial crises in order to increase
their performance [36,37]. SMEs do not have the same incentive to comply with risk stand-
ards as the size of their operations rarely requires strict adherence to standards similar to
those of larger enterprises. In addition, many of the risks identified by these standards
require immediate action by the enterprise; however, they are often not managed, leading
to corporate vulnerability [20,38].
An enterprise operating as a system is managed by a functional or process approach,
with the possibility of using project management. According to Henao-Calad [39], process
management is a management method that systematically identifies business processes
and their attributes and creates conditions for their effective course, coordination, meas-
urement, and continuous improvement, resulting in a quality product integrating cus-
tomer requirements and business strategy. Gosnik and Stubelj [40] state that the principle
of process management is based on the maximum integration of activities between indi-
vidual organizational units, where a fundamental innovation is the perception of the pro-
cess as a whole. It is inconclusive whether the entire process occurs in one organizational
unit or occurs across the entire enterprise. Nisar [41] and Saralaya [42] argue that the cause
of potential problems in an organization is poorly designed and ongoing processes that
need to be modified, and all activities that do not bring value to the customer should be
eliminated. According to Stravinskiene and Serafinas [43], value arises in the processes
that occur in an enterprise while monitoring the fulfillment of the interests and needs of
customers, owners, and other interest groups of the enterprise. These conclusions are con-
firmed by Zuhaira and Ahmad [44], who argue that the prerequisite for successful busi-
ness management is the systematic identification of processes; the definition of their
sources, indicators, input and output requirements; and especially the knowledge of the
risks of each process. The identification of risks in processes should be followed by the
search for and evaluation of the impacts of the conditions that can affect business pro-
cesses. All this must be used to design and implement effective preventive measures. Tu-
bis and Werbinska-Wojciechowska [45] state that it is necessary to constantly assess the
risks of key processes and identify the sources of risks that can cause failure with a nega-
tive impact on the reliability of processes. Wang and Wen [46] agree with this statement,
arguing that it is necessary to create a process map and organize risk processes into a
logical and clear structure.
At present, there are still enterprises that use management based on a functional ap-
proach focused on individual functions. Most organizational structures are based on the
concept of functions and are organized based on specialists who perform specialized
tasks. According to Szelagowski [47], this functional management creates several prob-
lems. Individual functions are locally limited, and there is destructive competition be-
tween individual functions and insufficient communication between departments, which,
according to Vugec [48], causes much more risks in management than in the process ap-
proach.
In the current business environment, the issues of project management and risk man-
agement are increasingly interconnected. The increased interest is related to the growing
Systems 2023, 11, 71 6 of 20
number of implemented projects in individual enterprises worldwide. According to pre-
vious authors [49,50], the reasons are the growing needs to improve processes, to improve
information technology, to change, and to secure funding for the business. The ever-
changing environment puts pressure to introduce unique, specific changes in the organi-
zation, the purpose of which is to ensure the profits and growth of the enterprise. Willum-
sen et al. [51] state that properly implemented project management in conjunction with
risk management can contribute to efficient resource management (financial, time and
human), increase quality, and bring efficiency to production processes. Risk management
helps project management achieve successful project completion at the right time, at the
right cost, and with the right quality of project outputs [52].
Risks are an integral part of the operations of any enterprise. The most important
impacts of risks are felt by SMEs, which are considered the most important part of the
world economy and the engine of economic growth [53,54]. It should also be remembered
that the dynamics and uncertainty of the business environment greatly complicate deci-
sion-making processes for enterprise executives and managers [55]. Most entrepreneurs
try to identify risks, but risk is not related to their business processes such that they can
manage and mitigate these risks. Most of the findings from previous studies show that
every entrepreneur has an interpretation and assessment of risk that is relevant to his or
her risk management activities and performance [56]. This explains why perception and
ability to manage risk tend to be influenced by the accepted risk management approach
[57,58]. Risk management, both in enterprises and in projects and processes themselves,
should include key processes such as risk identification, risk analysis, risk assessment and
the development of risk response strategies. Risk response strategies include the selection
and implementation of effective measures to reduce risks and mitigate the adverse effects
of adverse events. The need for an effective strategy, especially in SMEs, is very important,
and the competitive advantage, as well as the performance of SMEs, depends on it. Im-
proving competitive advantage also depends on the organization and its management
system. Ensuring the performance of SMEs and effective management of corporate risks
is the envy of the business strategy of the enterprise itself [59,60]. According to Rehman,
[59] “SMEs face higher risks in terms of globalization as a result of their limited resources
and small size”.
The theoretical background shows a summary of the perception of risk management
by various authors. The perception of risk management varies and in various sources we
can see the intermingling of risk management with other areas. Our theoretical contribu-
tion was the harmonization and merger of management systems, while we see risk man-
agement as an important area from which we start and take it as the key one in the man-
agement of SMEs. We focused on the business environment of SMEs within the Slovak
Republic, as it is an area of our focus, and we focus on and will focus on giving further
surveys. By implementing risk management, it is possible to increase the efficiency of
these management systems. At the same time, the theoretical background is the starting
point for statistical research as well as the creation of hypotheses and research questions,
which are followed by the next chapter.
3. Development of Hypotheses
Every year, individual world organizations conduct various studies and surveys
aimed at assessing the current state of the application of risk management and identifying
the most serious business risks. According to a global study conducted by Protiviti [61],
the most significant business risks identified in 2020 were the following: the risk of
changes in legal requirements, the risk of changing economic impacts, the risk of reduced
market entry, the risk of reduced digitization in an enterprise, weak resilience to change,
and cyber threats, the risk of breach of personal data protection, the risk of an insufficient
level of corporate culture, and the risk of lost customer loyalty and the inability to adopt
new communication technologies in the field of marketing.
Systems 2023, 11, 71 7 of 20
According to the ISACA [62], the most significant business risks facing businesses
worldwide are the following: information and cyber risks (29%), reputational risks (15%),
financial risks (13%), operational risks (12%), legal risks (8%), technological risks (6%),
strategic risks (6%) and political risks (3%). The study shows that in the last year, attention
to risk management has increased by up to 46% compared to the previous year. Top man-
agement (38%) and middle management (13%) pay the most attention to risk manage-
ment, and managers at the operational level (9%) pay the least attention to risk manage-
ment [62]. Delloite [63] states that in connection with the coronavirus pandemic, less than
half of enterprises (46%) cited third parties as the most common cause of failure in their
businesses, failing financially and being unable to pay their liabilities. According to enter-
prises, the financial impacts have increased up to fivefold compared to last year. Busi-
nesses perceived climate risks, environmental risks, personnel risks, financial risks, health
and safety risks, and risk of data loss to be the most important risks [63]. MarshMcLennan
[64] compared and assessed the considerable change in the three most significant risks
identified over the years. In 2009, these risks were financial, macroeconomic, and strategic
risks; in 2019, they were cyber, political, and strategic risks. In 2022, it is expected that
these risks will be cyber, technological and strategic risks [65]. According to other global
studies [61,63], the importance of applying risk management to prevent adverse events is
expected to increase, increasing the need for managerial training in risk management.
The issue of corporate risk management has long been discussed not only in the
world but also in EU countries. Like global organizations, organizations and universities
in the V4 countries conduct various studies and research and process results assessing the
current state of the application of risk management and the identification of the most se-
rious business risks. In addition, the V4 countries have quite similar economic conditions
and development, although the risks may be perceived differently [20].
According to Dankiewicz’s study [66], the most common risk faced by SMEs in Po-
land is personnel risk, which was most frequently mentioned risk by representatives of
medium-sized enterprises (68%). The second type of risk that entrepreneurs perceive is
legal risk. Market risks are perceived by enterprises operating in the market for more than
10 years (51.9%) and microenterprises (50%). Market risk is less pronounced for the ser-
vices sector (43.2%) and medium-sized enterprises (44%). According to a study by Ga-
vurova [65] for SMEs in the Czech Republic, the business environment is more demanding
for microenterprises, which showed higher doses of pessimism in all evaluated areas com-
pared with SMEs.
Within the V4 countries, the same research was conducted in 2017–2018 to identify
the most serious business risks of SMEs. In Slovakia, the most serious risks identified were
as follows: market risks at 26%, financial risks at 21%, economic risks at 19%, personnel
risks at 11%, operational risks at 9%, legal risks at 7%, security risks at 6% and other risks
at 1% [67]. In the Czech Republic, business owners and managers consider the most seri-
ous risks faced by SMEs, in particular as follows: market risks (24%), financial risks (19%),
personnel risks (19%), economic risks (16%), operational risks (10%), legal risks (6%) and
security risks (5%) [68]. In Poland, the most serious business risks identified were market
risks (20%), financial risks (16%), personnel risks (15%), economic risks (14%), operational
risks (12%), security risks (12%), and legal risks (11%) [69]. In Hungary, market owners
and managers mainly consider market risks (19%) to be the most serious risks faced by
SMEs, and market risks are followed by personnel risks (18%), financial risks (16%), eco-
nomic risks (13%), operational risks (14%), security risks (11%), and legal risks (9%) [70].
Based on the processed research results in the V4 countries, it is possible to assess that the
most serious business risks of SMEs that they identified are perceived similarly. SMEs in
these countries have identified market risks, which are mainly associated with the use of
products and services in domestic and foreign markets, as the biggest threat. The second,
third, and fourth most serious risks were identified as financial, personnel, and economic
risks. The order of these risks differed only slightly from one country to another [20].
Systems 2023, 11, 71 8 of 20
Various foreign enterprises, e.g., The Project Management Institute, also focus their
research on project risk management, which highlights its importance and the need to
interconnect the research [71,72]. According to Berkley Risk [73], a global study of project
risk management has identified the 10 most serious global risks faced by enterprises. In
4th place is the risk of shortening the time of project implementation (so-called tighter pro-
ject schedule), in 5th place is a risk of increasing the complexity of projects, and in 8th place
is insufficient use of project management tools [73]. According to other processed results
from individual global studies [74–76], it is possible to evaluate that the most common
cause of project failure is the inappropriately defined scope and goal of a project and the
plans for individual resources. Furthermore, Klein and Müller [77] state that project man-
agers mostly use a business plan as a tool, the obligatory part of which is the risk manage-
ment within the preparatory phase of project implementation. Nevertheless, project man-
agers do not sufficiently address this preparatory phase of project implementation and
often identify risks based only on their own estimates and feelings. Persistent reasons for
project failures are the insufficient analysis of project progress [78]. Many projects are not
sufficiently monitored, and individual problems are not solved at the right time, which
brings numerous financial losses for projects. Wellingtone [79] states that in up to 50% of
cases, project managers do not follow the procedures of applying project risk management
methods and techniques, which results in many problems occurring in projects. Similarly,
project managers perceive numerous shortcomings in the application of project risk man-
agement [80]. Several authors [81,82] agree that this is because top management does not
want to conduct project risk management, as it does not feel beneficial. Another factor is
the insufficiently defined risk management policy in enterprises. According to a world-
wide study [83], only 12% of enterprises have a proactive approach to project risk man-
agement. In these enterprises, according to the statements of managers, project risk man-
agement is at a very good level. Only 10% of enterprises require top management to re-
view the risk reports from project managers; in 8% of the enterprises where project man-
agers work, top management regularly reviews key project risks, with only 7.5% assessing
these risks. In more than 49.24% of enterprises, top management does nothing in this area.
The requirements we have set for reasoning and building hypotheses are intercon-
nected and condition each other. We carried out their separate assessment due to a better
understanding of the essence of the problem; the intention was to preserve the continuity
of the development of scientific knowledge and its enrichment with the obtained conclu-
sions.
Given these facts and to verify the purposes of the article, the following hypotheses
were formulated (H):
1. H1: There are statistically significant differences in the risk management between
SMEs according to the type of management (H1_A), age (H1_B) and size of SMEs
(H1_C);
2. H2: There are statistically significant differences in the perception of the three most
significant business risks between SMEs according to the type of management
(H2_A), age (H2_B) and size of SMEs (H2_C);
3. H3: There are statistically significant differences in the ability of entrepreneurs to
manage risk between SMEs according to the type of management (H3_A), age (H3_B)
and size of SMEs (H3_C);
4. H4: There are statistically significant differences in the use of risk mitigation
measures in an enterprise between SMEs according to the type of management
(H4_A), age (H4_B) and size of SMEs (H4_C).
To determine whether to accept or reject the statistical hypotheses formulated, the
following research questions (Q) were formulated with the following possible answers:
5. Q1: Do you address risk management in SMEs? Answers: yes, sometimes, no.
6. Q2: Which of the following risks do you currently consider key in SMEs? The maxi-
mum number of answers was 3. Answers: security risk (SR: e.g., injury, PC virus, or
Systems 2023, 11, 71 9 of 20
dangerous working environment), economic risk (ER: e.g., rise in energy and raw
material prices or exchange rate changes), financial risk (FR: e.g., threat of insolvency
or an imbalance in the proportions of own and foreign resources of the enterprise),
business risk (BR: e.g., in-creased competition or insufficient marketing), personal
risk (PR: e.g., unskilled employ-ees or employee turnover), legal risk (A6: e.g.,
changes in laws), market risk (MR: e.g., in-sufficient sales or demand), other risks
(OR: possibility for respondents to indicate other risks).
7. Q3: Do you think you can manage the risks in your business? Answers (A): yes, and
therefore nothing has happened to us (A1), yes, we train employees according to the
re-quirements of the law (A2), yes, we create financial reserves in the enterprise for
unex-pected events (A3), no, we do not perceive threats (A4).
8. Q4: What risk reduction measures do you use? The maximum number of answers
was 3. Answers (A): financial reserves (A1), insurance (A2), flexibility (A3), risk
avoidance (A4), risk reduction (A5), risk diversification (A6), expansion of the pro-
duction program (A7), risk sharing (A8), risk transfer to a trading partner (A9), and
otherwise (A10).
9. The research problem is to find answers to research questions and to strengthen ex-
isting findings in order to bridge the knowledge gap in solving problems centered on
SMEs’ ability to manage business risks in specific conditions, as well as to identify
key risks for SMEs and opportunities to mitigate them.
4. Methodology
To evaluate the aim of the article, the primary data from the business environment
of SMEs in the Slovak Republic were collected. Data collection was conducted in the pe-
riod from 9/2019 to 9/2020 using an online questionnaire. Only the owners or top manag-
ers of the SMEs (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) could complete the question-
naire. To increase the reliability of the questionnaire, a targeted selection of respondents
was conducted through contact persons (in person), by telephone and by e-mail. The re-
quest to complete the questionnaire was addressed to 500 respondents (the number of
respondents was determined based on the application of sample size analysis). The ques-
tionnaire (22 questions—100%) was divided into the following parts: (i) demographic data
of the respondents (questions nos. 1–5), (ii) business management (questions nos. 6–10),
(iii) risk management (questions nos. 11–15), (iv) causes of project failure (questions nos.
16–22).
The total number of completed questionnaires was 396 (362 (91.4%) were fully com-
pleted questionnaires, and 34 (8.6%) were incomplete questionnaires). Incomplete ques-
tionnaires were excluded from further empirical evaluation. The return rate of the ques-
tionnaire was 79.2% (396 completed questionnaires). The results of the reliability of the
questionnaire were more than 0.9 for each question (Cronbach’s alpha).
4.1. Approach
All performed calculations were carried out in statistical software for data analysis—
SPSS Statistics version 25.
Pearson’s chi-squared test (hereinafter referred to as the “Chi-square test”) was ap-
plied to discover statistically significant differences among the selected groups of re-
spondents based on the formulated questions according to the criteria; see, e.g., Chi-
square test is used to detect statistically significant differences between two or more sam-
ple groups. Even before the above-mentioned tests were applied, descriptive statistics
tools were used (descriptive characteristics—absolute and relative frequency). Their con-
tribution consists of: (a) in presenting the basic structure of respondents’ answers to se-
lected statements; (b) in their subsequent use in the application of tests. To determine de-
scriptive statistics of selected risks, according to selected criteria, a simple sorting method
was used—sorting according to two statistical signs. The results are summarized in clear
contingency tables. The formula for calculating the test criterion (TK) for the Chi-square
Systems 2023, 11, 71 10 of 20
test can be found in several scientific, professional, and educational publications. When
calculating the TK for Chi-square itself, it is necessary to calculate the expected (theoreti-
cal) frequencies. The prerequisite for applying the Chi-square is the necessity that all
groups of respondents meet the minimum required expected frequency of 5. The critical
testing area was determined based on the significance level of the test and the number of
degrees of freedom. The level of significance (α) was set at the level of 0.05 (5%). The
number of degrees of freedom (v) is determined as the product of (r-1) and (s-1), where
(r-1) is the number of variations of the first statistical feature minus one and (s-1) is the
number of variations of the second statistical feature minus one. If the calculated value of
the test criterion is lower than the critical area of testing, then the statistical hypothesis
cannot be rejected. Chi-square was used to determine whether there are statistically sig-
nificant differences in the attitudes of respondents to selected statements according to the
chosen criterion. The statistical method is suitable considering the scaling of the attitudes
of sample sets of respondents [84].
A pivot table was calculated for each question (Q1,…, Q4) using descriptive statistics
(absolute and relative frequencies). To determine the descriptive characteristics, the sim-
ple sorting method—sorting based on two statistical characters (research criterion and
type of response to the question)—was used. The assumption of using the chi-squared test
was verified for each test—the expected frequency [85]. If the calculated p value of the chi-
squared test was less than the significance level, then the hypothesis was confirmed [86].
Evaluation of hypotheses according to the Chi-square test was verified also using a non-
parametric approach (N.A.). The Z-test method was used to discover statistically signifi-
cant differences in respondents’ answers according to the selected criterion. If the p value
of the Z-test for 2 population proportions was less than the significance level (0.05), then
the hypothesis was confirmed [87]. All calculations were performed using SPSS Statistics
statistical software.
4.2. Demographic Structure of the Sample of Respondents
The demographic structure of the selected sample of respondents (n = 362) is as fol-
lows. Regarding the number of employees in the enterprise, 235 (64.9%) are from a micro-
enterprise, 73 (20.2%) are from a small enterprise, and 54 (14.9%) are from a medium-sized
enterprise. Regarding the business sector, 96 (26.5%) are from the engineering industry,
91 (25.1%) are from business and financial services, 67 (18.5%) are from construction, 46
(12.7%) are from accommodation and food service activities, 26 (7.3%) are from transport,
25 (6.9%) are from another industry (e.g., education, counseling, etc.), and 11 (3.0%) are
from agriculture. Regarding the business region, 130 (35.9%) are from western Slovakia
(regions: Bratislavský, Trnavský, Trenčiansky, and Nitriansky), 208 (57.5%) are from cen-
tral Slovakia (regions: Žilinský and Banskobystrický), and 54 (6.6%) are from eastern Slo-
vakia (regions: Košický and Prešovský). Regarding the operating period of the enterprise
in the business environment, 74 (20.5%) are from enterprises with up to 5 years of business
operations, 112 (30.9%) are from enterprises with 5 to 10 years of business operations, and
176 (48.6%) are from enterprises with 10 and more years of business operations. Regarding
the type of business management, 272 (75.1%) engage in the process management of the
enterprise, 51 (14.1%) engage in the project management of the enterprise and 39 (10.8%)
engage in the system management of the enterprise.
5. Results
The results below confirm the reliability and validity; for the critical values, see, e.g.,
[88,89] of the analyzed data (CA—Cronbach’s alpha, FL—factor loading, CR—composite
reliability, and AVE—average variance extracted): factor—risk management; item—
Q1,…, Q4; FL: Q1 = 0.841, Q2 = 0.759, Q3 = 0.891, and Q4 = 0.947; CA = 0.811; CR = 0.920;
and AVE = 0.744.
Systems 2023, 11, 71 11 of 20
The results of the empirical study show that 140 (38.7%) respondents are engaged in
all risk management activities (identification, analysis, evaluation, monitoring, and crea-
tion of reduction measures). Conversely, 56 (15.5%) respondents stated that they do not
engage in any risk management activity. The other SMEs (156, 43.1%) are engaged in the
following main activities of risk management: risk identification (28, 7.7%), risk analysis
(33, 9.1%), risk assessment (28, 7.7%), and creating measures to reduce (42, 11.6%) and
monitor risks (35, 9.7%).
5.1. Addressing Risk Management in the Enterprise
The evaluation of the question focused on addressing risk management in SMEs
(question Q1) is as follows: 92 (24.4%) of the respondents answered yes, 114 (31.5%) of the
respondents answered sometimes and 156 (43.1%) of the respondents answered no. The
contingency table contains the classification of respondents according to Q1 and selected
research criteria (see Table 1).
Table 1. Disparities in risk management.
Q1 Type of Assessment Age of Enterprise Size of Enterprise
Proc. Proj. S <5 >5, <10 >10 Mic.E SM Med.E
Yes
%
65
23.9
13
25.5
14
35.9
15
20.3
33
29.4
44
25.0
47
20.0
28
38.4
17
31.5
Sometime
%
82
30.1
21
41.2
11
28.3
25
33.8
30
26.8
61
34.7
75
31.9
21
28.8
18
33.3
No
%
125
46.0
17
33.3
14
35.8
34
45.9
49
43.8
71
40.3
113
48.1
24
32.8
19
35.2
SUM
%
272
100
51
100
39
100
74
100
112
100
176
100
235
100
73
100
54
100
CH.T. 5.855 (0.210) 3.358 (0.500) 12.458 (0.014)
N.A. 8.271 (0.197) 9.664 (0.117) 13.174 (0.009)
* Note: Proc.—process, Proj.—project; S—systematic; Mic. E—microenterprise; SM—small enter-
prise; Med. E—medium enterprise; <5—age of the enterprise is less than 5 years; >5, <10—age of the
enterprise is more than 5 years and less than 10 years; >10—age of the enterprise is more than 10
years; and CH.T.—Chi-squared test (p value). Source: own research.
The results (see Table 1) show that the type of business management and the age of
the enterprise are not significant criteria that affect the risk management in SMEs in the
business environment of the Slovak Republic (type of assessment: p value of the chi-
squared test = 0.210, and age of the enterprise: p value of the chi-squared test = 0.210).
However, Table 1 shows that the size of the enterprise is an important criterion (p value
of the chi-squared test = 0.014). Hypotheses H1_A and H1_B were rejected. Hypothesis
H1_C was confirmed.
Small enterprises (38.4%) and medium-sized enterprises (31.5%) were statistically
significant (SM: Z-test = −3.192, and p value = 0.001; Med. E: Z-test = −1.992, and p value =
0.048), and they are more involved in risk management than microenterprises (20.0%).
5.2. Perception of Key Risks in Businesses
The evaluation of the issue of the perception of the key risks in SMEs (question Q2)
is as follows: 209 (57.7%) of the respondents answered economic risk, 180 (49.7%) of the
respondents answered market risk, 176 (48.6%) of the respondents answered business
risk, 142 (39.2%) of the respondents answered personal risk, 135 (37.3%) of the respond-
ents answered security risk, 127 (35.1%) of the respondents answered financial risk, 76
(21.0%) of the respondents answered legal risk and 13 respondents answered other risks.
Table 2 contains the classification of the respondents according to Q2 and the selected
research criteria.
Systems 2023, 11, 71 12 of 20
Table 2. Disparities in the perception of the key risks in businesses.
Q2 Type of Assessment Age of Enterprise Size of Enterprise
Proc. Proj. S <5 >5, <10 >10 Mic.E SM Med.E
ER
(%)
159
58.5
32
62.7
18
46.2
45
60.8
78
69.6
86
48.9
131
55.7
44
60.3
34
63.0
MR
(%)
152
55.9
18
35.3
10
25.6
51
68.9
51
45.5
78
44.3
124
52.8
31
42.5
25
46.3
BR
(%)
123
45.2
26
51.0
27
69.2
43
58.1
58
51.8
75
42.6
131
55.7
28
38.4
17
31.5
PR
(%)
101
37.1
27
52.9
14
35.9
21
28.4
50
44.6
71
40.6
71
30.2
36
49.3
35
64.8
SUM 272 51 39 74 112 176 235 73 54
CH.T. 16.751 (0.010) 10.937 (0.090) 24.047 (<0.001)
N.A. 19.188 (0.003) 9.173 (0.129) 39.087 (<0.001)
* Note: Proc.—process; Proj.—project; S—systematic; Mic. E—microenterprise; SM—small enter-
prise; Med. E—medium enterprise; <5—age of the enterprise is less than 5 years; >5, <10—age of the
enterprise is more than 5 years and less than 10 years; >10—age of the enterprise is more than 10
years; ER—economic risk; MR—market risk; BR—business risk; PR—personal risk; and CH.T.—
Chi-squared test (p value). Source: own research.
The results (see Table 2) show that the type of business management and the size of
the enterprise are important criteria that affect the perception of the key risks in businesses
(type of assessment: p value of the chi-squared test = 0.010, and size of the enterprise: p
value of chi-squared test < 0.001). However, the results show that the age of SMEs was not
a significant criterion (p value of the chi-squared test was higher than 0.05). Hypotheses
H2_A and H2_C were accepted. Hypothesis H2_B was rejected.
Small enterprises (49.3%) and medium-sized enterprises (64.8%) were statistically
significant (SM: Z-test = −2.994, and p value = 0.003; Med. E: Z-test = −4.758, and p value =
0.000) and perceive personnel risk in SMEs more than microenterprises (30.2%). SMEs
with process (37.1%) business management statistically significantly (Proc: Z-test = −2.118,
and p value = 0.034) perceive personnel risk in businesses to a lesser extent than SMEs
with project management (52.9%). Conversely, SMEs with process (55.9%) business man-
agement statistically significantly (Proc: Z-test = 2702, and p value = 0.007) perceive market
risk in businesses more than SMEs with project management (35.3%).
5.3. Ability to Manage the Risks of Owners or Top Managers
The evaluation of the question on the ability of owners or top managers to manage
risks (question Q4) is as follows: 42 (11.6%) of the respondents answered A1, 124 (34.2%)
of the respondents answered A2, 127 (35.1%) of the respondents answered A3, and 69
(19.1%) of the respondents answered A4. Table 3 contains a classification of the respond-
ents according to Q3 and the selected research criteria.
Table 3. Disparities in the ability to manage risks in SMEs.
Q3 Type of Assessment Age of Enterprise Size of Enterprise
Proc. Proj. S <5 >5, <10 >10 Mic.E SM Med.E
A1
%
34
12.5
8
15.7
6
15.4
13
17.8
9
8.0
20
11.4
36
15.4
6
8.2
5
9.3
A2
%
88
32.4
18
35.3
12
30.8
11
15.1
38
33.9
75
42.6
59
25.1
29
39.7
31
57.4
A3
%
106
39.0
9
17.6
12
30.8
35
47.9
47
42.0
45
25.6
88
37.4
27
37.0
12
22.2
A4 44 16 9 14 18 36 52 11 6
Systems 2023, 11, 71 13 of 20
% 16.1 31.4 23.0 19.2 16.1 20.5 22.1 15.1 11.1
SUM
%
272
100
51
100
39
100
74
100
112
100
176
100
235
100
73
100
54
100
CH.T. 12.007 (0.065) 25.228 (<0.001) 24.640 (<0.001)
N.A. 21.188 (<0.001) 31.111 (<0.001) 39.087 (<0.001)
* Note: Proc.—process; Proj.—project; S—systematic; Mic. E—microenterprise; SM—small enter-
prise; Med. E—medium enterprise; <5—age of the enterprise is less than 5 years; >5, <10—age of the
enterprise is more than 5 years and less than 10 years; >10—age of the enterprise is more than 10
years; A1—yes, and therefore nothing happened to us; A2—yes, we train employees according to
the requirements of the law; A3—yes, we create financial reserves in the enterprise for unexpected
events; A4—no, we do not perceive threats; and CH.T.—Chi-squared test (p value). Source: own
research.
The results (see Table 3) show that the age and size of the enterprise are important
criteria that affect the ability to manage risks in SMEs (p values of chi-squared tests are
less than the significance level). The results show that the type of SME management was
not a significant criterion (p value of the chi-squared test = 0.065). Hypothesis H3_A was
rejected. Hypotheses H3_B and H3_C were accepted.
Enterprises with more than 5 years in the business environment (>5, <10: 33.9% and
>10: 42.6%) are statistically significant (>5, <10: Z-test = −2.889, and p value = 0.004; >10: Z-
test = −4.216, and p value = 0.000) and are better able to manage risks because they train
their employees compared to enterprises with up to 5 years in business (15.1%). Enter-
prises with up to 10 years in the business environment (<5: 47.9% and >5, <10: 42.0%) are
statistically significant (<5: Z-test = −3.362, and p value = 0.000; >5, <10: Z-test = 2.909, and
p value = 0.004) and are better able to manage risks because they create financial reserves
for unexpected events compared to enterprises with more than 10 years in business
(25.6%).
5.4. Use of Risk Reduction Measures in SMEs
SMEs use the following risk reduction measures (question Q4): 207 (57.2%) of the
respondents answered A1, 176 (48.6%) of the respondents answered A2, 162 (44.8%) of the
respondents answered A3, 154 (42.5%) of the respondents answered A4, 98 (27.1%) of the
respondents answered A5, 82 (22.7%) of the respondents answered A6, 65 (18.0%) of the
respondents answered A7, 62 (17.1%) of the respondents answered A8, 29 (8.0%) of the
respondents answered A9 and 32 (8.8%) of the respondents answered A10. Table 4 classi-
fies respondents according to the four most important risk reduction measures and the
selected research criteria.
Table 4. Disparities in the use of risk reduction measures.
Q4 Type of Assessment Age of Enterprise Size of Enterprise
Proc. Proj. S <5 >5, <10 >10 Mic.E SM Med.E
A1
(%)
168
61.8
19
37.3
20
51.3
48
64.9
60
53.6
99
56.3
147
62.6
35
47.9
25
46.3
A2
(%)
129
47.4
30
58.8
17
43.6
26
35.1
60
53.6
90
51.1
113
48.1
34
46.6
29
53.7
A3
(%)
128
47.1
16
31.4
18
46.2
30
40.5
60
53.6
72
40.9
100
42.6
41
56.2
21
38.9
A4
(%)
108
39.7
25
49.0
21
53.8
25
33.8
46
41.1
83
47.2
104
44.3
33
45.2
17
31.5
SUM 272 51 39 74 112 176 235 73 54
CH.T. 10.437 (0.107) 8.150 (0.228) 6.862 (0.334)
N.A. 9.271 (0.174) 4.551 (0.317) 3.174 (0.609)
Systems 2023, 11, 71 14 of 20
* Note: Proc.—process; Proj.—project; S—systematic; Mic. E—microenterprise; SM—small enter-
prise; Med. E—note: Proc.—process; Proj.—project; S—systematic; Mic. E—microenterprise; SM—
small enterprise; Med. E—medium enterprise; <5—age of the enterprise is less than 5 years; >5,
<10—age of the enterprise is more than 5 years and less than 10 years; >10—age of the enterprise is
more than 10 years; A1—financial reserves; A2—insurance; A3—flexibility; A4—risk avoidance;
and CH. T.—Chi-squared test (p value). Source: own research.
The results (see Table 4) show that the research criteria (type of business manage-
ment, size, and age of the enterprise) are not significant criteria. The research criteria did
not affect the use of risk reduction measures in SMEs (p values of the chi-squared tests
were higher than the significance level). Hypotheses H4_A, H4_B, and H4_C were re-
jected.
6. Discussion
The negative surprising result of the case study is that only approx. 40% of SMEs are
actively involved in all risk management activities. First, it is necessary to examine the
causes (e.g., reluctance, financial background, and ignorance) and negative consequences
of the facts (bankruptcy of SMEs, negative financial indicators of SMEs, and redundan-
cies). Second, the conclusions are an opportunity to better promote the importance of risk
management in the SME segment. In this context, several authors such as Hrabal [90] and
Belás [91] argue that SME owners are the ones on whom the final attitude of SMEs toward
risk management depends.
According to SMEs, economic risk (49.7%) and market risk (48.6%) are the most sig-
nificant risks that have a negative effect on the business environment in the Slovak Re-
public. These conclusions consistently follow the findings and perceptions of Madrid-Gui-
jarro [92] and Lee [93]. In a sample of 193 SMEs in the Slovak Republic, Ivanová [84] found
that enterprises have difficult access not only to external sources of financing in the form
of bank loans but also to funds and grants from the European Union. Kotaskova [94] states
that other countries of the V4, except Hungary, face similar problems. However, the fi-
nancial and market problems of SMEs are not only a Central European problem [95,96].
Bertoni et al. [97] argue that the impact of state-supported participatory loans on the
growth of business activities is enormous. Project-driven and process-driven SMEs are
more likely to perceive the effects of economic and market risk than systemically managed
SMEs. The size of the enterprise is also a significant factor. In contrast, differences in risk
perception according to the age of the enterprise are not significant. This finding contrasts
with Lazanyi [98]. In a sample of 1141 SMEs from the Czech Republic, they found that the
age of the enterprise is a significant factor in the perception of business risks.
The SME owners/top managers confirmed significant disparities in the subjective
evaluations of the ability to manage risks. Age, size, and type of SMEs are important fac-
tors in business management. The characteristics of an enterprise that does not perceive a
threat (does not manage risks in the enterprise) are as follows: a microenterprise with
project management that has been operating for up to 5 years in a business environment.
Conversely, the characteristics of an enterprise that manages risks (creates financial re-
serves) are as follows: a medium-sized enterprise with systematic management and over
10 years operating in the business environment of the Slovak Republic.
The results show that there were no significant differences in risk reduction methods
between SMEs in terms of age, size, and type of SMEs. Respondents provided the three
most frequently implemented methods: insurance (57.2%), flexibility (48.6%) and risk
avoidance (55.8%). However, the least used risk reduction methods are, according to the
selected sample of respondents, risk sharing (8.0%) and risk transfer to a business partner
(8.8%). Watanabe et al. [93] state that spending funds on risk reduction is a major problem
in traditional management practices. Evaluating the justifications for the use of funds is
crucial for the effective management of SMEs [99]. When applying risk treatment, an en-
terprise must remember the knowledge gained from the risk assessment; in addition, risk
Systems 2023, 11, 71 15 of 20
treatment must be part of the business resources and risk appetite of stakeholders. To help
enterprises find a compromise where the risks are in line with the returns, certain strate-
gies can be applied based on their specificities. It is constantly confirmed that SME own-
ers’ approach is reactive and not preventive. For example, the steps taken to minimize
risks have always occurred after the risk has already occurred. In short, risk management
in SMEs depends entirely on the experience of the SME owner, who is himself a risk. The
SME risk management model assumes that the SME owner will provide the central pro-
cesses or resources needed to continue operating in the event of a loss. However, many
SMEs cannot always cover insurance costs due to their limited size and inability to ade-
quately generate a source of income for the SME owner that justifies the opportunity costs
[15].
6.1. Theoretical, Policy, and Practical Implications
The achieved results are a source of information for several segments of the business
environment. Due to the fragility (background, financial, and personnel stability) of SME
businesses, the conclusions are inspiring for the owners themselves or the top managers
of SMEs. Awareness of their perception of risks and their management compared with
other SMEs in a given segment can bring inspiring ideas, new opportunities for enter-
prises, or streamlining of the given risk management process. No less important benefi-
ciaries are businesses and educational organizations. Given the identified disparities in
risk management (type of project management, age, and size of SMEs), these organiza-
tions can better assess the needs of their potential customers and create courses, seminars,
workshops, and tailor-made materials for selected groups of SMEs [100]. The results can
serve as a basis for government institutions and other organizations addressing the qual-
ity of the business environment and risk management. These institutions are the creators
of the strategic documents, regulations, and decrees that support the development and
innovation of SMEs.
Buganová and Šimíčková [101], who studied this issue in Slovakia and the Czech
Republic, declare that the application of project risk management is insufficient compared
to global results, so many projects end in failure. The results of studies [83] in Slovakia
and the Czech Republic confirmed that in more than 66% of enterprises in which project
risk management is insufficiently applied, there are budget overruns, noncompliance with
schedules, and schedule resource management. According to Masar and Hudakova [83],
another reason for project failure, which appears in the conditions of the Slovak Republic,
is the change in the scope of a project and insufficient support from the top management.
Many managers master the theoretical process of applying the risk management process
but are unable to actively use them in a general form, even many times in their modified
form.
6.2. Future Research Directions
The survey is based on and follows from Hudakova studies [67], whereas the pur-
pose of the survey was to identify risk factors within SMEs. The purpose of the survey is
to strengthen the resilience of SMEs and identify risks that could affect their resilience. In
the next phase of the research, attention will be given to SMEs that apply risk avoidance,
financial reserves, and flexibility as methods used to reduce risks. These SMEs will be
contacted again with a request to recomplete the questionnaire and will be asked for
deeper analysis of risk management and the perception of their possible negative conse-
quences for SMEs. At the same time, we are focusing the next direction of research on the
interruption of business as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifying the impact
of the pandemic on SMEs in the Slovak Republic. The intention is to identify possible
problems that have arisen for SMEs during the pandemic and to support the increase in
resilience and continuity within SMEs.
Systems 2023, 11, 71 16 of 20
7. Conclusions
The aim of this article was to identify the disparities in the management and risk
management of SMEs depending on the type of management, age and size of SMEs in the
business environment of the Slovak Republic.
The empirical results show that only 38.7% of SME owners and managers are in-
volved in all risk management activities (including the identification, monitoring, design
and implementation of risk reduction measures in SMEs). Furthermore, 43.1% of SMEs do
not conduct risk management. The age and type of SMEs are not significant factors. Mi-
croenterprises are more concerned with risk management than SMEs. The three most sig-
nificant risks in doing business according to owners and top managers are economic risk
(57.7%), market risk (48.6%), and business risk (39.2%). The type of management and the
size of the enterprise are important factors, and there are significant differences in the
perception of key risks. Thirty-five percent of the addressed owners/managers stated that
they are able to manage risks because they create financial reserves for unforeseen events
in SMEs. Financial reserves, insurance, and flexibility are among the three most commonly
used risk reduction measures in SMEs. Disparities according to the research criteria are
not statistically significant.
The case study was conducted during 2019 and 2020, and thus the perceptions of the
owners and top managers could be significantly affected by the uncertainty associated
with the COVID-19 pandemic. Another limit is the relatively small size of the business
environment of one Central European country with strong ties to the automotive industry.
While the applied statistical methods are easy and clear to interpret, there was a need to
verify them using nonparametric tests.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.B., M.H., J.Š. and E.M.; methodology, M.H. and J.Š.;
software, K.B., M.H., and J.Š.; validation, K.B., M.H., J.Š. and E.M.; formal analysis, K.B., M.H., and
E.M.; investigation, K.B., M.H., J.Š. and E.M.; resources, K.B. and E.M.; data curation, K.B., M.H., J.Š.
and E.M.; writing-original draft preparation, K.B., M.H., J.Š. and E.M.; writing-review and editing,
K.B., M.H., J.Š. and E.M.; visualization, J.Š. and E.M.; supervision, K.B. and M.H.; project admin-
istration, K.B., M.H., J.Š. and E.M.; funding acquisition, K.B., M.H., J.Š. and E.M. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article.
Acknowledgments: Publication of this paper was supported by the Scientific Grant Agency of the
Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic—VEGA No. 1/0243/20
Integrated risk management system in the conditions of contemporary changes in enterprise envi-
ronment in Slovakia, and by Cultural and Educational Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education,
Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic-026ŽU-4/2020 KEGA Innovation and interna-
tionalization of teaching as a tool to improve the quality of education.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Hardy, C.; Maguire, S.; Power, M.; Tsoukas, H. Organizing risk: Organization and management theory for the risk society. Acad.
Manag. Ann. 2020, 14, 1032–1066. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0110.
2. Luburić, R. A model of crisis prevention (based on managing change, quality management and risk management). J. Cent. Bank.
Theory Pract. 2019, 8, 33–49. https://doi.org/10.2478/jcbtp-2019-0012.
3. Mina, A.; Minin, A.D.; Martelli, I.; Testa, G.; Santoleri, P. Public funding of innovation: Exploring applications and allocations
of the european SME instrument. Res. Policy 2021, 50, 104131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104131.
4. Gold, S.; Trautrims, A.; Trodd, Z. Modern slavery challenges to supply chain management. Supply Chain. Manag. 2015, 20, 485–
494. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-02-2015-0046.
5. Gródek-Szostak, Z.; Suder, M.; Szeląg-Sikora, A.; Siguencia, L.O. The “dobry czas na biznes” (“good time for business”) pro-
gram as a form of support for self-employment in poland. A case study of the sub-regions of the małopolskie province. Sustain-
ability 2020, 12, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229688.
6. Heinicke, A. Performance measurement systems in small and medium-sized enterprises and family firms: A systematic litera-
ture review. J. Manag. Control 2018, 28, 457–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00187-017-0254-9.
Systems 2023, 11, 71 17 of 20
7. Nasir, W.M.N.B.W.M.; Al Mamun, A.; Breen, J. Strategic orientation and performance of SMEs in malaysia. SAGE Open 2017, 7,
1−13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017712768.
8. Ližbetinová, L.; Štarchoň, P.; Weberová, D.; Nedeliaková, E.; Juříková, M. The approach of SMEs to using the customer data-
bases and CRM: Empirical study in the slovak republic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12010227.
9. Bannò, M.; Piscitello, L.; Amorim Varum, C. The impact of public support on SMEs’ outward FDI: Evidence from italy. J. Small
Bus. Manag. 2014, 52, 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12029.
10. Kheradmand, Y.; Honarbakhsh, A.; Movahedifar, S.M.; Afshari, A.R. Development of a risk management model for using in-
terpretive structural modeling. Int. J. Nonlinear Anal. Appl. 2020, 11, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.22075/ijnaa.2020.4486.
11. Snieška, V.; Navickas, V.; Havierniková, K.; Okręglicka, M.; Gajda, W. Technical, information and innovation risks of industry
4.0 in small and medium-sized enterprises–case of slovakia and poland. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020, 21, 1269–1284.
https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2020.12279.
12. Jonek-Kowalska, I. Efficiency of enterprise risk management (ERM) systems. Comparative analysis in the fuel sector and energy
sector on the basis of central-european companies listed on the warsaw stock exchange. Resour. Policy 2019, 62, 405–415.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.04.011.
13. Lahuta, P.; Mošková, E. Implementácia integrovaného manažmentu rizík v rámci strategického manažmentu na Slovensku a v
Západnej Európe. Mladá veda–Medzinárodná konferencia mladých vedeckých pracovníkov a doktorandov, Žilina, 2022.
14. Brustbauer, J. Enterprise risk management in SMEs: Towards a structural model. Int. Small Bus. J. 2016, 34, 70–85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242614542853.
15. Krüger, N.A. A Risk Management Tool for SMMEs: The Case of Sedibeng District Municipality. Master’s Thesis, North West
University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa, 2020.
16. Torkkeli, L.; Durst, S. Corporate Social Responsibility of SMEs: Learning Orientation and Performance Outcomes. Sustainability
2022, 14, 6387. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116387.
17. Meyer, N.; Meyer, D.; Kot, S. The development of a process tool for improved risk management in local government. Qual.
Access Success 2017, 18, 425–429.
18. Bird, K. New handbook helps SMEs better manage risks. ISO Standards, 2016. Available online:
https://www.iso.org/news/2016/01/Ref2034.html (accessed on 19 January 2023).
19. Hudáková, M.; Buganová, K.; Míka, V.T.; Masár, M. Integrovaný system manažmentu rizík v podniku. 1. Vyvd. Žilina: EDIS
ŽU, 2021. P. 375. ISBN 978-80-554-1759-2.
20. Oláh, J.; Kovacs, S.; Virglerova, Z.; Lakner, Z.; Kovacova, M.; Popp, J. Analysis and comparison of economic and financial risk
sources in SMEs of the visegrad group and Serbia. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071853.
21. Hernández-Garrido, R.; Perea, D.; Pérez-Calañas, C. The Vision of the Main Mobile Apps Related to Caravanning: An Analysis
of the Reviews Focusing on Users and Developers. J. Tour. Serv. 2022, 24, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.29036/jots.v13i24.360.
22. Kubas, J.; Polorecka, M.; Holla, K.; Soltes, V.; Kelisek, A.; Strachota, S.; Maly, S. Use of Toxic Substance Release Modelling as a
Tool for Prevention Planning in Border Areas. Atmosphere 2022, 13, 836. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13050836.
23. Holla, K.; Moricova, V. Specifics of Monitoring and Analysing Emergencies in Information Systems. 13th Int. Sci. Conf. Sustain.
Mod. Safe Transp. 2019, 40, 1343–1348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.186.
24. Virglerova, Z.; Khan, M.A.; Martinkute-Kauliene, R.; Kovacs, S. Then Internationalization of SMEs in Central Europe and its
Methods of Risk Management. Amfiteatru Econ. 2020, 22, 792–807. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2020/55/792.
25. Gorzeń-Mitka, I. Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach to Analyze the Interaction Among Key Factors of Risk Manage-
ment Process in SMEs: Polish Experience. Eur. J. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 8, 339–349. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2019.v8n1p339.
26. Kovaľová, M.; Hvolková, L.; Klement, L.; Klementová, V. Innovation strategies in the Slovak enterprises. Acta Oeconomica Univ.
Selye 2018, 7, 79–89.
27. Falkner, E.M.; Hiebl, M.R.W. Risk management in SMEs: A systematic review of available evidence. J. Risk Financ. 2015, 16, 122–
144. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRF-06-2014-0079.
28. Zigiene, G.; Rybakovas, E.; Alzbutas, R. Artificial Intelligence Based Commercial Risk Management Framework for SMEs. Sus-
tainability 2019, 11, 4501. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164501.
29. Hudakova, M.; Gabrysova, M.; Petrakova, Z.; Buganova, K.; Krajcik, V. The Perception of Market and Economic Risks by Own-
ers and Managers of Enterprises in the V4 Countries. J. Compet. 2021, 13, 60–77. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2021.04.04.
30. Verbano, C.; Venturini, K. Managing risks in SMEs: A literature review and research agenda. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2013, 8,
186–197. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242013000400017.
31. Kozubíková, L.; Belás, J.; Ključnikov, A.; Virglerová, Z. Differences in approach to selected constructs of entrepreneurail orien-
tation in SME segment regarding the selected socio-demographic factors. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2015, 14, 333–355.
32. Henschel, T. Typology of risk management practices: An empirical investigation into german SMEs. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus.
2010, 9, 264–294. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESB.2010.031922.
33. Lima, P.F.D.; Crema, M.; Verbano, C. Risk management in SMEs: A systematic literature review and future directions. Eur.
Manag. J. 2020, 38, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.06.005.
34. Kruliš, J. Jak vítězit Nad Riziky, Aktivní Management Rizik–Nástroj říZení úSpěšných Firem; Linde: Praha, Czech Republic, 2011.
35. Lahuta, P.; Mošková, E. The need for education of managers in the field of risk management as a part of business flow manage-
ment in slovak enterprises. Conference proceedings: CHALLENGES, TRENDS AND INSPIRATIONS WITHIN THE LABOR MAR-
KET 2021.
Systems 2023, 11, 71 18 of 20
36. Ashraf, B.N.; Arshad, S.; Yan, L. Trade openness and bank risk-taking behavior: Evidence from emerging economies. J. Risk
Financ. Manag. 2017, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm10030015.
37. Kubás, J.; Veľas, A.; Siser, A. Implementation of Multi-criteria Decision Making as the Method Used to Achieve Optimal Level
of Security in Local Municipalities. 4th ICMIBI Int. Conf. Train. Educ. Manag. 2017, 83, 371–375. 10.26602/lnms.2017.83.371.
38. Smit, Y.; Watkins, J. A literature review of small and medium enterprises (SME) risk management practices in South Africa. Afr.
J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 6324–6330. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM11.2709.
39. Henao-Calad, M.; Montoya, P.R.; Ochoa, B.U. Kmowledge Managebt Processe and Intellectual Property Management Processes:
An Integrated Conceptual Framework. Ad-Minist. 2017, 31, 137–160. https://doi.org/10.17230/ad-minister.31.8.
40. Gosnik, D.; Stubelj, I. Business process management and risk-adjusted performance in SMEs. Kybernetes 2021, 51, 659–675.
https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2020-0794.
41. Nisar, T.M. Management Processes and Decision Making. Smartphone App Implement. That Improv. Product. 2019, 5, 69-107.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781547400546-005.
42. Saralaya, S.; Saralaya, V.; D’Souza, R. Compliance Management in Business Processes. Digit. Bus. Bus. Algorithms Cloud Comput.
Data Eng. 2019, 21, 53–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93940-7_3.
43. Stravinskiene, I.; Serafinas, D. The Link between Business Process Management and Quality Management. J. Risk Financ. Manag.
2020, 13, 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13100225.
44. Zuhaira, B.; Ahmad, N. Business process modeling, implementation, analysis, and management: The case of business process
management tools. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2021, 27, 145–183. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2018-0168.
45. Tubis, A.A.; Werbinska-Wojciechowska, S. Risk Management Maturity Model for Logistic Processes. Sustainability 2021, 13, 659.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020659.
46. Wang, P.Q.; Wen, Y. Research on Security Risk Management Process. Proc. Int. Acad. Conf. Front. Soc. Sci. Manag. Innov. 2019,
62, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.2991/iafsm-18.2019.33.
47. Szelagowski, M. Traditional Business Process Management. Dyn. Bus. Process Manag. Knowl. Econ. Creat. Value Intellect. Cap.
2019, 71, 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17141-4_1.
48. Vugec, D.S.; Tomicic-Pupek, K.; Vuksic, V.B. Social business process management in practice: Overcoming the limitations of
the traditional business process management. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2018, 10, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979017750927.
49. Abreu, W.R.A.; Zotes, L.P.; Ferreira, K.M. Risk management in the evaluation of investment projects. Syst. Manag. 2018, 13, 267–
282. https://doi.org/10.20985/1980-5160.2018.v13n3.1102.
50. Tavares, B.G.; Silva, C.E.S.D.; Souza, A.D.D. Practices to Improve Risk Management in Agile Projects. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl.
Eng. 2019, 29, 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218194019500165.
51. Willumsen, P.; Oehmen, J.; Stingl, V.; Geraldi, J. Value creation through project risk management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37,
731–749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.01.007.
52. Reed, A.H.; Angolia, M. Risk management usage and impact on information systems project success. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Proj.
Manag. 2018, 9, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJITPM.2018040101.
53. Karpak, B.; Topcu, I. Small medium manufacturing enterprises in Turkey: An analytic network process framework for priori-
tizing factors affecting success. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2010, 125, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.01.001.
54. Meyer, N.; De Jongh, J.J. The importance of entrepreneurship as a contributing factor to economic growth and development:
The case of selected European countries. J. Econ. Behav. Stud. 2018, 10, 287–299. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v10i4(J).2428.
55. Melnyk, O.; Sroka, W.; Adamiv, M.; Shpak, Y. Information Diagnostic Support of Enterprise Under the Conditions of Uncer-
tainty. J. Mendel. Univ. Agric. For. Brunn. 2017, 65, 1403–1414. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201765041403.
56. Androniceanu, A. The Three-Dimensional Approach of Total Quality Management, An Essential Strategic Option for Business
Excellence. Amfiteatru Econ. 2017, 19, 61–78.
57. Child, J. Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice. Sociology 1972, 6, 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857200600101.
58. Huang, S.K. The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate sustainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
2013, 20, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1295.
59. Rehman, A.U.; Anwar, M. Mediating role of enterprise risk management practices between business strategy and SME perfor-
mance. Small Enterp. Res. 2019, 26, 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13215906.2019.1624385.
60. Saeidi, P.; Saeidi, S.P.; Sofian, S.; Saeidi, S.P.; Nilashi, M.; Mardani, A. The impact of enterprise risk management on competitive
advantage by moderating role of information technology. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2019, 63, 67–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2018.11.009.
61. Protiviti. Executive Perspectives on Top Risks 2020. Available online: https://www.protiviti.com/sites/default/files/nc-state-pro-
tiviti-survey-top-risks-2020.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2022).
62. ISACA. State of Enterprise Risk Management 2020. Available online: https://www.isaca.org/-/media/info/state-of-enterprise-
risk-management-survey/index.html (accessed on 23 May 2022).
63. Deloitte Releases Global Risk Management Survey. Available online: https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/services/risk-advi-
sory/blogs/deloitte-releases-global-risk-management-survey.html (accessed on 23 May 2022).
64. MarshMcLennan. Emerging risks. Available online: https://www.marshmclennan.com/insights/emerging-risks.html (accessed
on 23 May 2022).
Systems 2023, 11, 71 19 of 20
65. Gavurova, B.; Cepel, M.; Belas, J.; Dvorsky, J. Strategic management in SMEs and its significance for enhancing the competi-
tiveness in the V4 countries-A comparative analysis. Manag. Mark. 2020, 15, 557–569. https://doi.org/10.2478/mmcks-2020-0032.
66. Dankiewicz, R.; Ostrowska-Dankiewicz, A.; Bulut, C. The attitudes of entrepreneurs of the small and medium-sized enterprises
sector in Poland to key business risks. Equilib. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2020, 15, 511–536. https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.2020.023.
67. Hudakova, M.; Masar, M.; Luskova, M.; Patak, M.R. The Dependence of Perceived Bussiness Risks on the Size of SMEs. J.
Compet. 2018, 10, 54–69. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2018.04.04.
68. Belas, J.; Gavurov, B.; Cepel, M.; Kubak, M. Evaluation of economic potential of business environment development by com-
paring sector differences: Perspective of SMEs in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Oeconomia Copernic. 2020, 11, 135–159 .
https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2020.006.
69. Pietrasieński, P.; Ślusarczyk, B. Internationalization of small and medium enterprises—Empirical research review on barriers
to entry into foreign markets. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2015, 11, 113–123.
70. Popp, J.; Oláh, J.; Machova, V.; Jachowicz, A. Private equity market of the Visegrad group. Ekon. -Manaz. Spektrum 2018, 12, 1–
15. https://doi.org/10.26552/ems.2018.1.1-15.
71. PMI. Project Management Institute. Success Rates Rise–Transforming the High Cost of Low Performance. Available online:
https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2018 (accessed on 27 May 2022).
72. KPMG. Driving Business Performance-Project Management Survey 2017. Available online: https://www.pmi.org/-/me-
dia/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2016.pdf?sc_lang_temp=en (ac-
cessed on 27 May 2022).
73. Berkley Risk. FMI Risk Management Survey. Available online: https://barkleyrisk.com/wp-content/up-
loads/2019/11/AGC_Risk_Study_2019.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2022).
74. De Bakker, K.; Boonstra, A.; Wortmann, H. Does risk management contribute to IT project success? A meta-analysis of empirical
evidence. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.07.002.
75. Kozhakhmetova, A.; Zhidebekkyzy, A.; Turginbayeva, A.; Akhmetova, Z. Modelling of project success factors: A cross-cultural
comparison. Econ. Sociol. 2019, 12, 219–234. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-2/13.
76. Rabechini, J.R.; Monteiro de Carvalho, M. Understanding the impact of project risk management on project performance: An
empirical study. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2013, 8, 6. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242013000300006.
77. Klein, G.; Müller, R. Quantitative Research Submissions to Project Management Journal. Proj. Manag. J. 2019, 50, 263–265.
https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972819840141.
78. Teller, J.; Kock, A.; Gemünden, H.G. Risk Management in Project Portfolios is more than Managing Project Risks: A Contingency
Perspective on Risk Management. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21431.
79. Wellingtone Project Management. Available online: https://www.wellingtone.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-State-of-
Project-Management-Survey-2017-1.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2022).
80. Gemünden, H.G. Success, learning, and risk. Proj. Manag. J. 2015, 46, 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21519.
81. Crispim, J.; Silvia, L.H.; Rego, N. Project risk management practices: The organizational maturity influence. Int. J. Manag. Proj.
Bus. 2019, 12, 187–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-10-2017-0122.
82. Hofman, M.; Spalek, S.; Grela, G. Shedding New Light on Project Portfolio Risk Management. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1798.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101798.
83. Masar, M.; Hudakova, M. Project risk management in the context of Industry 4.0 in condition of manufacturing enterprises in
Slovakia. Impact Ind. 2019, 4, 145–154.
84. Ivanová, E. Barriers to the development of SMEs in the slovak republic. Oeconomia Copernic. 2017, 8, 255–272.
https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.v8i2.16.
85. Agresti, A. A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Stat. Sci. 1992, 7, 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011454.
86. Goodman, L.A. The multivariate analysis of qualitative data: Interactions among multiple classifications. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1970,
5, 226–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1970.10481076.
87. Damaraju, L.; Raghavarao, D. Statistical inferences accounting for human behavior. Metrika 2005, 62, 65–72.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s001840400356.
88. Cho, E.; Kim, S. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 207–230.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114555994.
89. Peterson, R.A.; Kim, Y. On the relationship between coefficient alpha and composite reliability. J. Appl. Psychol. 2013, 98, 194–
198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030767.
90. Hrabal, M.; Tuček, D.; Molnár, V.; Fedorko, G. Human factor in business process management: Modeling competencies of BPM
roles. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2021, 27, 275–305. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-04-2020-0161.
91. Belás, J.; Sopková, G. A Model of Entrepreneurial Orientation. Transform. Bus. Econ. 2016, 15, 630–645.
92. Madrid-Guijarro, A.; García-Pérez-de-Lema, D.; Van Auken, H. Financing constraints and SME innovation during economic
crises. Acad. Rev. Latinoam. De Adm. 2016, 29, 84–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/ARLA-04-2015-0067.
93. Lee, N.; Sameen, H.; Cowling, M. Access to finance for innovative SMEs since the financial crisis. Res. Policy 2015, 44, 370–380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.09.008.
94. Kotaskova, A.; Lazanyi, K.; Amoah, J.; Belas, J. Financial risk management in the V4 countries’ SMEs segment. Invest. Manag.
Financ. Innov. 2020, 17, 228–240. https://doi.org/10.21511/imfi.17.2020.21.
Systems 2023, 11, 71 20 of 20
95. Ceptureanu, E.G.; Ceptureanu, S.; Herteliu, C. Evidence regarding external financing in manufacturing MSEs using partial least
squares regression. Ann. Oper. Res. 2021, 299, 1189–1202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03291-2.
96. Cainelli, G.; Giannini, V.; Iacobucci, D. Small firms and bank financing in bad times. Small Bus. Econ. 2020, 55, 943–953.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00164-7.
97. Bertoni, F.; Martí, J.; Reverte, C. The impact of government-supported participative loans on the growth of entrepreneurial
ventures. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 371–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.09.006.
98. Lazanyi, K.; Virglerová, Z.; Dvorský, J.; Dapkus, R. An analysis of factors related to “taking risks”, according to selected socio-
demographic factors. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2017, 14, 35–50. https://doi.org/10.12700/APH.14.7.2017.7.3.
99. Nagyová, A.; Pačaiová, H.; Markulik, Š.; Turisová, R.; Kozel, R.; Džugan, J. Design of a model for risk reduction in project
management in small and medium-sized enterprises. Symmetry 2021, 13, 763. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13050763.
100. Lara, F.J.; Salas-Vallina, A. Managerial competencies, innovation and engagement in SMEs: The mediating role of organisational
learning. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 79, 152–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.06.002.
101. Buganová, K.; Šimíčková, J. Risk management in traditional and agile project management. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 40, 986–
993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.07.138.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(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.
