Next Article in Journal
Determinants of Intention to Use of Hospital Information Systems among Healthcare Professionals
Previous Article in Journal
An SD-LV Calculation Model for the Scale of the Urban Rail Transit Network
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Systems
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/systems12070234
systems-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Research on the Impacts of Global Entrepreneurial Environment Changes on Small and Medium-Sized Entrepreneurship

by
Kristián Furiak
1,*,
Katarína Buganová
1,
Pavol Prievozník
1,
Mária Hudáková
1 and
Jaroslav Slepecký
2
1
Faculty of Security Engineering, University of Žilina, Univerzitná 8215/1, 010 26 Žilina, Slovakia
2
Ambis vysoká škola, a.s. Lindnerova 575/1, 180 00 Praha 8-Libeň, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Systems 2024, 12(7), 234; https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12070234
Submission received: 2 May 2024 / Revised: 25 June 2024 / Accepted: 26 June 2024 / Published: 28 June 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The elementary components of the global business environment and market are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which play an important role in the economy through the implementation of their business activities. Naturally, they are threatened by the effects of global crises, which appeared to a considerable extent during the COVID-19 pandemic, with ongoing effects on the business sector until the present. This article aims to verify the effectiveness of systems of crisis management, risk management, and business continuity management (CM, RM, and BCM) in increasing the resilience and sustainability of SMEs during a specific global crisis. The authors provide statistical verification of hypotheses using data from the results of a nationwide questionnaire conducted on small and medium-sized enterprises. Based on the results, the effectiveness and positive effect of the CM, RM, and BCM systems in reducing the effects of specific crises on small and medium-sized enterprises have been demonstrated. Companies with a higher level of implementation of the systems generally showed a better handling of the crisis period, while the negative effects of the crisis on their business activities were significantly reduced. These conclusions bring knowledge that complements and supports the previous claims of other authors in the field of crisis management. Due to the lack of empirical research in this area, the results offer an important basis for further investigation of the effective use of CM, RM, and BCM in the context of economic security. Regarding the increasing level of globalization, it can be assumed that similar crises affecting supply chains and the world economy can be expected in the future. Considering the high variability and associated instability of the global business environment, the authors suggest focusing future research on new types of risks and threats primarily associated with technological progress and the shaping of the future character of society.

1. Introduction

In today’s constantly evolving business environment, companies face myriad risks that can disrupt their operations and threaten their very existence. Business risk can take many forms. One of the views on risk perceives it as an increased vulnerability/exposure to disruptions resulting from an organization’s supply chain configuration [1].
Human life and business have always been affected by the risk of external events. Major historical events such as wars, famines, epidemics, and natural disasters can change many of the strategic plans of organizations and businesses. Different types of risks, such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or utility outages, carry the potential to fundamentally disrupt business operations or cause a decline in customer satisfaction, reputational damage, or a reduction in business revenue. Another important mechanism of risk development in the business environment comes through changes that occur in the internal or external environment of the organization. The changes related to the advent of automation, the associated restructuring of operational processes, and the introduction of outsourcing policies can be considered risk drivers. Unforeseen events must become an integral part of an organization’s strategic decision-making to enhance its resiliency [2,3].
Business continuity management (BCM) is an important tool that is available to businesses to ensure continuous service delivery in even a risk-prone environment. By default, this management system consists of the identification and subsequent process of managing emerging threats that have the potential to disrupt process chains in the company. When properly implemented in the management of the company, BCM ensures the effective restoration of the affected areas of the company without disrupting its standard operation. There is growing interest among organizations in implementing business continuity management (BCM) systems in today’s unstable business environment, which is influenced by a high degree of globalization. BCM is perceived as a systematic way of dealing with the consequences of crises and adverse events. Many researchers agree that BCM is critical in strengthening the resilience of SMEs and ensuring their long-term performance sustainability [4]. However, researchers have also argued that most SMEs lack the skills and resources to properly plan for a disaster [5,6], making them vulnerable to crises.
The research into small business continuity is relatively narrow in scope. The majority of studies focus on large organizations or industries. However, the strategic potential of BCM in the business environment is still not sufficiently explored and therefore creates space for further research. Crisis management theory emphasizes the strategic importance of the ability to withstand and recover from crises. The origins of BCM can be found in the standard crisis management system. CM theory sets out the basic assumptions for the implementation of BCM tools. BCM was originally derived from the fields of disaster recovery and crisis and risk management. Nowadays, it is gradually expanding to include a wider range of actors, threats, techniques, and responses [7]. Most business studies concentrate on adjusting to modified business situations, mainly due to the arrival of innovative rivals, novel products and markets, or because of altered political, economic, and legal conditions [7,8]. In current standards, such as ISO 22301:2019, risk management is considered a separate part of BCM, and thus the full potential of integration is not reached. Studies show that using practices that are implicitly related to risk management also improves service performance, including service quality, service level, and customer satisfaction [6,8,9,10].

2. The Impact of Business Environment Factors on the Business Interruption of SMEs

The viability of SMEs can be influenced by various factors from the external as well as internal environment of enterprises. On the one hand, it depends on the nature and intensity of the factor, and on the other hand, it also depends on the ability of the enterprise to maintain its operability even in adverse situations. Practically, SMEs are highly sensitive and vulnerable to global trends, especially during crises [11].
According to several sources, the COVID-19 pandemic has had the greatest impact on the SME sector, which accounts for more than 90% of all businesses worldwide. SMEs play an important role in the global economy. During the pandemic, SMEs were the most threatened and vulnerable group within the business sector. For SMEs, it was quite challenging to take appropriate action as it hindered them from their normal operations [12,13,14,15,16]. Bundy et al. (2017) summarized four primary characteristics of crises through a comprehensive literature review: (1) crises can cause uncertainty, disruption, and change; (2) crises are harmful to organizations and their stakeholders; (3) crises are socially constructed phenomena; and (4) crises are part of complex processes and not discrete events. The COVID-19 pandemic undoubtedly fulfilled the aforementioned crisis characteristics and caused unprecedented social and economic disruptions that led to dramatic losses of human lives around the world [17].
The main concerns about business disruption currently come with specific risks that include cyber incidents, natural disasters (including fires and explosions), machinery and equipment failures, as well as secondary effects of the energy crisis and the conflict in Ukraine [18]. SMEs can influence income distribution, tax revenues, resource allocation and use, job creation, and gross domestic product. Therefore, it is important to be aware of the importance of SMEs as they are the backbone of the economy, create jobs, and contribute to product growth [4]. However, several researchers argue that most SMEs lack the skills and resources to plan for emergencies, making themselves vulnerable to crises. Compared to large organizations, SMEs are more responsive to financial fluctuations, cash fluctuations, regulations, technology changes, shifts in consumer demand, and economic instabilities in general. In particular, SMEs face challenges in implementing BCM due to limited access to the level of common top-management knowledge and resources [5,6,19,20]. For example, the UK government has recognized the importance of SMEs and created a ‘Business Continuity Guide’ to support the rapid recovery and survival of SMEs following disasters or crises. The Business Continuity Guide aims to reduce emergency risk and enable SMEs to successfully assist their local communities in the event of a crisis [21,22].
The literature confirms that, in the past, SMEs overlooked the importance of BCM implementation for their organizations and did not prepare any form of crisis management plan. They solved problems more reactively when they occurred [11,23,24,25]. On the other hand, Quratulain Syahirah and Awang Ali (2023) confirm that SMEs are increasingly aware of the need for BCM to protect their businesses from risks, unexpected disasters, and disruptions [21]. In addition, further studies emphasize the importance of SME survival in the event of a crisis. SMEs should start to prioritize risk assessments and analyses to reveal possible risks and weaknesses in their processes and activities [26].
Implementation of BCM is a systematic procedure. Its role is to ensure the operation of a company in the event of unforeseen disruptions without interruption. BCM, as a strategic process, serves to identify and assess potential risks, formulate comprehensive plans to mitigate those risks, and maintain smooth functioning and operational efficiency during periods of disruption [27,28]. The ability to respond adequately to threats is conditioned by an established system of critical process continuity management, or effective risk management and control of the ability to use plans to ensure business continuity in the event of a crisis. Crisis management involves critical and challenging functions. Crises often do not allow much time for individuals or organizations to react adequately [29]. Over the past few years, much research has been conducted in the field of crisis management (e.g., [20,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]). B. Ma (2022) emphasizes that proactive and reactive risk management, as a part of crisis management, has a positive impact on resilience, which forms the basis for preparedness for a crisis. Bundy et al. (2017) study the within-organizational dynamics of crisis management in connection with studies that are focused on organizational preparedness, crisis leadership, and organizational learning in terms of an integrated organizational structure and system that prevents the occurrence of crisis, mitigates the impact of the crisis, and enhances growth from the crisis [20].
Business continuity in its broader scope includes risk management, crisis management, crisis communications, IT disaster recovery and cyber-security incident response, etc. Business continuity represents an effort to ensure that the business continues to carry out critical business processes. Disaster recovery outlines the processes and procedures for recovering vital technologies to execute these business processes. Effective risk management helps to maintain business continuity and operability in the face of adversity. The International Organization for Standardization’s guidelines for risk management [30] define risk as the impact of uncertainty on objectives. Incorporating risk management methods and practices into enterprise management allows for the early identification, analysis, and assessment of risks. This makes the enterprise capable of designing measures to manage and reduce risks to an acceptable level [12,35,36,37].
The connection between CM, RM, and BCM offers a better understanding of managing an enterprise and the key activities that ensure the operation of the enterprise, and how the prevention of negative phenomena can affect the enterprise. Risk management is perceived positively as a way to prevent risk, and crisis management as a response to the risks that caused the crisis. The proactive approach attempts to understand a system even before it fails (unacceptable quality) in an attempt to identify how it could fail in the future. Risk management is a fundamental framework adopted by managers to specify the proactive approach and improve the performance of processes.
Small business management often has to make decisions under uncertainty and risk and take into account the risks associated with the business. BCM is a proven practice that helps businesses identify potential internal and external influences that could put organizations at risk. As a result, BCM practices have become crucial in recognizing potential risks and planning strategies to secure the business operations of an organization. Strategic coherence creates resilience as it increases the risk of reliability through the development of a sense of continuity during adverse situations [5,38,39,40,41].
A dynamic business environment cannot be controlled in a globalized world. For this reason, businesses must be able to respond correctly to the volatile development of the environment. It is the implementation of systems such as CM, RM, and BCM that leads to building the resilience and sustainability of the company. Resilience and sustainability are basic prerequisites for preparing for various events associated with the impact of risks and crises in the business environment. Previous studies verify that the organizational resilience capacity is influenced by both internal and external factors. An enterprise also requires both internal and external resources to overcome the negative consequences of a disruptive event [35,42,43]. A combined notion of BCM and resilience is crucial to the study of crisis management in small businesses since resourcefulness has been identified as an imperative antecedent of their resilience [44]. According to Duchek (2019), organizational resilience is defined as “an organization’s ability to anticipate potential threats, to cope effectively with adverse events, and to adapt to changing conditions”. Since global events are unpredictable, organizations need to be able to deal with drastic changes in their businesses. Crisis management often needs to be applied in a short time period, often after an event. A highly resilient business can make timely decisions, both in day-to-day business and in crises. Through situational awareness, CM can identify and manage key weaknesses and exhibit the adaptive ability to deal with change to ensure business continuity [45].
Effective CM is closely related to resilience. We understand resilience as the ability of a social system to “proactively adapt and recover from disturbances that are perceived within the system as outside the range of normal and expected disruption” [35,46]. Previous empirical studies verify that organizational resilience helps firms maintain the desired performance in a turbulent environment in terms of sustainability [47], organizational commitment [48], organizational innovation [49], expertise, adaptability and proactivity of the organization’s members [50], organizational effectiveness [51], and the overall performance of the organization [52,53]. According to several authors, the issue of enterprise resilience can be viewed from two perspectives. One of them presents resilience as the basic ability of an enterprise to survive in an unstable environment. The other perspective describes sustainability as a way to ensure the long-term prosperity of an enterprise through satisfactory fulfillment of its stated objectives. Resilience can be understood as a precondition that enables the enterprise to respond adequately to unexpected situations and crises, while the enterprise can find opportunities for its development in potential threats [54,55]. Enterprise resilience is also perceived as creating enterprise mechanisms and processes to enable the enterprise to identify and assemble resources to combat disruptions before, during, and after a crisis. These mechanisms should minimize the severity of the disruption to the operations of the enterprise and the damage caused by the impact of the crisis. Resilience, thus, contributes to building the sustainability of the business in the long term. Sustainability rests in the ability to cope, in the long term, with severe disruptions and sustained stress that is caused by the effects of crises that occur cyclically in the business environment [56,57]. Resilience and sustainability are very closely related and integral to the long-term development of a business. Several researchers have emphasized the importance of organizational resilience and performance level in the context of BCM [6,24,26].
Various factors constantly disrupt the business environment of SMEs and affect the sustainability of the business. The severity of the disruptions, at least partly, depends on the size of the business and how it handles unforeseen changes. SMEs may have more difficulty in anticipating resource shortages, and they usually have simpler planning procedures, so they can hardly resist and cope with disruptions. Businesses need to be prepared and able to respond flexibly to changes in the environment to ensure their operability. Experts claim that effectiveness depends on stakeholders’ belief that the successful outcomes of the short-term and long-term impacts of crises outweigh the negative ones [20,38,46,58].
Crises of a global scale, which affect not only the enterprises but also the entire business environment, are of particular interest to researchers. Their impact on the business environment consists of rapid and unexpected changes to which businesses must be able to adequately respond and adapt. Our research deals with the investigation of the effectiveness of CM, RM, and BCM during the active impact of the global crisis. Similarly to several authors in the past, we also pay special attention in our work to the risks and effectiveness of CM as an outcome. RM can be considered effective when it brings risk reduction to a level that risk managers consider acceptable in an organizational or national context. CM is generally effective when a weakened or disrupted system (be it a social, organizational, or technical system) is brought back into alignment and achieves normal functioning at any stage of the process [35,59].

3. Aim and Methodology

The main goal of this research is to verify the effectiveness of CM, RM, and BCM systems in increasing the resilience and sustainability of SMEs during a specific global crisis. The current global business environment develops dynamically and brings a high degree of natural instability and challenges for business entities in the form of new threats and risks. The probability of crises’ occurrence increases in direct proportion to the globalization of the business environment. These crises change the environment through changes in consumer behavior, an increase in costs, interruption of supply chains, and interruption of business activities of entities. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic, as an example of such a global crisis, has shown that such events often carry a specific kind of impact that is very difficult to predict and prepare for in advance. Based on the experience of the COVID-19 period and the importance of SMEs, it is necessary to investigate the effectiveness of CM, RM, and BCM systems in solving the problem of building resilience and sustainability of SMEs in such an environment. SMEs are the fundamental basis of the economy in most developed economies. SMEs create a significant number of jobs and form the basis of supply chains for all business sectors. In addition, their stability and resistance during the impact of global crises also determine the stability and sustainability of their suppliers and customers. Therefore, we consider it necessary to examine the effectiveness of CM, RM, and BCM systems during a global crisis and, based on this, to further develop the research in this area to increase the resilience and sustainability of the economic apparatus.
The research contained in this article was carried out to answer the following research questions:
  • Can CM, RM, and BCM systems positively affect the long-term sustainability of SME business?
  • Is there a significant difference in the degree of impact of a global crisis on SMEs with integrated CM, RM, and BCM systems and on SMEs that do not have these systems fully integrated or do not have them at all?
  • Is there a significant impact of the presence/absence of CM, RM, and BCM systems in SMEs and how the company was prepared to handle the impact of a global crisis?
There were three hypotheses formulated based on the research questions. The hypotheses are mutually equivalent, and their confirmation or rejection leads to obtaining the required knowledge about the importance of CM, RM, and BCM systems for SMEs during a global crisis. The hypotheses were formulated as follows:
  • H1: The implementation of CM, RM, and BCM increases the degree of sustainability of enterprises; therefore, longer-operating enterprises have these systems implemented to a higher extent.
  • H2: Enterprises with a higher level of implementation of CM, RM, and BCM show a higher level of resilience, so the impacts of the pandemic were lower.
  • H3: The implementation of CM, RM, and BCM systems has a positive effect on the level of preparedness of companies to face global crises.
The basis for the statistical research were data obtained from a questionnaire implemented as part of a nationwide survey. As part of the survey, the situation in the national economy caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was used to demonstrate the undesirable influence of the external environment. The questionnaire was aimed at SMEs that operate within the Slovak Republic. Statistical methods were applied to evaluate the data and verify the hypotheses. The methods aimed to achieve two main purposes [60,61,62]:
  • Ascertain the representativeness of the statistical sample and the obtained results.
  • Verify the hypotheses by proving a statistically significant relationship and its strength between the selected variables.
Representativeness of the statistical sample
To determine the representativeness of the statistical sample, it is possible to use the expression based on the error rate, the probability distribution of the answers, and the number of standardized deviations in the following form [61,63]:
n = z 2   ×   p ( 1 − p ) e 2 1 + z 2   ×   p ( 1 − p ) e 2 N
where:
z—number of standard deviations
N—size of the population/sample
p—probability value of the distribution of answers
e—value of the error measure
The statistical set consists of 597,171 small and medium-sized enterprises, which, according to the data of the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, were operating in the territory of the Slovak Republic at the time of the survey [64]. The questionnaire itself was distributed online to randomly selected SMEs in the number of 1145 subjects as the original statistical sample. Questionnaires were filled out on behalf of business entities by their managers, or other persons who possessed sufficient necessary knowledge. The statistical sample was reduced as the total number of returned questionnaires was 359. This sample was further investigated. An overview of basic information about the survey is presented in Table 1.

3.1. Determination of Hypotheses and Their Verification through Dependency Calculation

Through the calculation of the statistical dependence between the variables, it will be possible to verify the established hypotheses. The procedure for the statistical verification of established hypotheses took place in the following two main stages:
  • investigating the existence of dependency,
  • exploring the power of dependency.

3.2. Investigating the Existence of Dependence

To investigate the dependence between statistical variables, it is possible to use Pearson’s Chi-squared test of independence. The test is based on the detection of differences between the observed frequency and the expected frequency. The mathematical expression for calculating test statistics for Pearson’s Chi-squared test of independence is the following [60,62]:
χ 2 = ∑ i = 1 R ∑ j = 1 C n i j − E i j 2 E i j
where:
R—number of rows
C—number of columns
nij—observed value
Eij—expected value
For this study, the level of significance was set at p < 0.05. The application of Pearson’s Chi-squared test of independence was used for all the investigated hypotheses.

3.3. Exploring the Power of Dependence

The verification of the hypotheses can be carried out by examining the degree and strength of the dependence between variables, assuming that a statistically significant relationship between them has been demonstrated in advance. For this purpose, Cramer’s contingency coefficient V and Pearson’s contingency coefficient can be applied [59,60,61,62,63].
The calculation of Pearson’s contingency coefficient was used as the main methodology for the verification of the hypotheses. The calculated value of the coefficient can reach values in the interval from 0 to 1, while its limit values are interpreted as follows [60,63,64,65]:
  • Value 0 represents contingent independence of investigated characteristics.
  • Value 1 represents full contingent dependence of investigated characteristics.
The contingency coefficient was calculated using the following formula [63]:
C = χ 2 χ 2 + n
where:
n—number of cells in a table
χ2—Chi-squared test statistic
Cramer’s contingency coefficient V was used as an auxiliary and control method for calculating the strength of dependence. Cramer’s contingency coefficient V takes on values in the interval from 0 to 1, while the following interpretation applies [65]:
  • Value 0 means that there is no relationship between the statistical characteristics.
  • Value 1 means that there is a perfect relationship between the statistical characteristics.
Cramer’s contingency coefficient V was calculated using the following formula [63]:
V = χ 2 n min ⁡ R , C − 1
where:
R—number of rows
C—number of columns
n—number of cells in a table
χ2—Chi-squared test statistic

4. Results

The hypotheses and research questions were tested through the application of statistical methods on data from the source statistical file. The results of the statistical verification of the formulated hypotheses are expressed graphically and in a percentage expression and described verbally.
For the actual determination of the representativeness of the statistical sample, the above-mentioned Expression (1) was used. In the calculation at the 95% confidence interval, with the established value of the estimation error at the level of 5.5% and with the share of the monitored character at the level of 0.5, it is necessary to reach a minimum representative statistical sample of 317 statistical units. Given that 359 companies participated in the survey, this randomly selected statistical sample can be considered representative.
The hypotheses investigated in this article are based on data obtained from the answers to questions Q3, Q4, Q10, and Q14 in the survey. Q1 (What business sector do you operate in?) is closely related to the research results. The following summary results for these questionnaire questions depict the meaning of the hypotheses, the way they are formulated, and a wider context of the questions.
Q1: What business sector do you operate in? The question aimed at investigating the SME business sector, which plays an important role in a broader understanding of the impact of the crisis when different impacts do not have an identical influence on all business sectors. The category “Industry” includes all sectors of industrial production that meet the SME character, namely mechanical engineering, manufacture of electronic products and electrical equipment, manufacture of chemical products and manufacture of other mineral products, manufacture of metals and fabricated metal products, manufacture of furniture, manufacture of textiles and other manufacturing. The respondents’ answers and their frequencies are shown in Table 2.
Q3: How long have you been in business? The question aimed at investigating the duration of the SME business, which plays an important role in the company’s previous experience with the crisis and should have an impact on the degree of integration of the CM, RM, and BCM management systems. The respondents’ answers and their frequencies are shown in Table 3.
Q4: What systems do you have integrated into your business? The question aimed at investigating which management systems are used by SMEs, and the question contained several options. Respondents could also fill in their original answers. Data on various combinations of implemented management systems in SMEs will be used for further research in this area. The research in this article only focuses on the presence of selected systems (CM, RM, BCM) alone or their combinations. The respondents’ answers and their frequencies are shown in Table 4.
Q10: Has the situation associated with the COVID-19 pandemic affected your business? The question aimed at investigating the extent to which SMEs were affected by the effects of the pandemic. Respondents answered by selecting a value on a scale from 1 to 5. It should be noted that this is the subjective opinion of the company´s statutory representatives, based on their internal assessment of the situation. The respondents’ answers and their frequencies are shown in Table 5.
Q14: How do you retrospectively assess your preparedness for handling the COVID-19 pandemic? The question aimed at investigating the level of preparedness of SMEs for dealing with the effects of the pandemic. Respondents answered by selecting a level on a scale of 1 to 5. Again, this is the subjective opinion of the company´s statutory representatives, based on their internal assessment of the situation. The question does not take into account the length of time required for the implementation of preparatory measures but focuses on whether SMEs retroactively evaluate the measures as sufficient or insufficient. The respondents’ answers and their frequencies are shown in Table 6.
Another aspect that could significantly influence the level of integration of the observed management systems in SMEs is the business sector in which they operate. During the research and subsequent data processing, Table 7 and Figure 1 were produced to show the degree of integration of CM, RM and BCM systems in SMEs in different industries. The research surveyed SMEs in each sector to determine whether they had all three of the observed management systems, at least one of the observed management systems, or none of the observed management systems in their internal environment.

4.1. Hypothesis H1

H1: The implementation of CM, RM, and BCM increases the degree of sustainability of enterprises; therefore, longer-operating enterprises have these systems implemented to a higher extent. The main assumption for this hypothesis is that longer-operating companies have overcome various crises during their operation, and they fought the vast majority of them by the implementation of some of the or all three CM, RM, and BCM systems. The dissertation research of Mošková indicates that the level of implementation of these systems in the company is influenced by other factors, such as the size of the company, its financial stability, the setup of internal processes, the business sector, and others [12]. Mošková considers each of the mentioned factors as important in the creation of characteristic features and the company’s approach to dealing with the effects of global crises. For sustainability, we consider it important to examine the connection of implementing these systems with the period of operation of the enterprise. However, we consider the other factors to be equally important for further research. Data obtained from the following questions will be used to confirm or reject this hypothesis:
  • Q.3: How long have you been in business (in months and years)?
  • Q.4: Within your company, do you have the CM, RM, and BCM systems integrated into the management?
The hypothesis formulation was inspired by the results of our previous research [66]. When answering question no. 4, respondents could choose several options, including other management systems. The answers were subsequently divided into three categories for statistical analysis, according to whether the companies have implemented all three systems (CM, RM, and BCM), at least one of the three, or none of them (Table 8).
Based on the calculations, the following results were found:
Pearson’s Chi-squared      χ2 = 39.6996
Critical value of Chi-squared   21.0261
p-value               p = 8.065 × 10−5
Cramer’s contingency coefficient  V = 0.1663
Pearson’s contingency coefficient  C = 0.3156
Based on the results, we conclude that there is a statistically significant relationship between the variables, while the dependence is average. It is clear from the results that the vast majority of companies have It is not necessary integrated at least one of the management systems. From the table of percentage shares (Table 9) and the graph of percentage shares (Figure 2), it is clear that with the growing time of the company’s operation, the rate of integration of at least one system and the rate of integration of all three systems increases slightly.

4.2. Hypothesis H2

H2: Enterprises with a higher level of implementation of CM, RM, and BCM show a higher level of resilience, so the impacts of the pandemic were lower. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that companies with a higher degree of integration of elements of CM, RM, and BCM are more successful in managing adverse events and crises. Theoretical claims and research also suggest these systems to be effective in resisting the consequences of crises. These systems should provide companies with opportunities to optimize internal processes to increase their resilience. Some authors directly perceive the implementation of CM, RM, and BCM systems as a basic procedure for building the company’s resilience. This should be reflected in the ability of companies to manage crises in terms of reducing their negative impacts [4,35,46]. Data obtained from the following questions will be used to confirm or reject this hypothesis:
  • Q.4: Within your company, do you have the CM, RM, and BCM systems integrated into the management?
  • Q.10: Has the situation associated with the COVID-19 pandemic affected your business (1—definitely yes, 5—not at all)?
The hypothesis formulation was inspired by the results of the research in Mošková et al. (2023). When answering question no. 4, respondents could choose several options, including other management systems. The answers were subsequently divided into three categories for statistical analysis, according to whether the companies have implemented all three systems (CM, RM, and BCM), at least one of the three, or none of them. Respondents answered question no. 10 by selecting the degree of influence represented by a numerical value from 1 (definitely yes) to 5 (not at all). A contingency table was compiled from the collected data and the statistical methods described in the previous section were applied (Table 10).
Based on the calculations, the following results were found:
Pearson’s Chi-squared     χ2 = 12.8279
Critical value of Chi-squared  15.5073
p-value              p = 0.1179
Based on the calculations, we conclude that there is no statistically significant relationship between the variables, as the calculated Chi-squared value is lower than the critical value of this indicator.

4.3. Hypothesis H3

H3: The implementation of CM, RM, and BCM systems has a positive effect on the degree of preparedness of enterprises to face global crises. This hypothesis is based on the assumption that companies with a higher degree of integration of CM, RM, and BCM elements are more successful in handling crises and adverse events, regardless of the extent to which they will be affected. For formulating and examining the hypothesis, general preparedness was taken into account as the ability to adequately respond to a crisis. The extent of the preparedness was assessed retrospectively by the companies for the period of the pandemic’s impact. Data obtained from the following questions will be used to confirm or reject this hypothesis:
  • Q.4: Within your company, do you have the CM, RM, and BCM systems integrated into the management?
  • Q.14: Were you prepared for handling the COVID-19 pandemic (1—definitely yes, 5—not at all)?
The hypothesis formulation was inspired by the results of previous research in Mošková et al. (2023). When answering question no. 4, respondents could choose several options, including other management systems. The answers were subsequently divided into three categories for statistical analysis, according to whether the companies have implemented all three systems (CM, RM, and BCM), at least one of the three, or none of them. Respondents answered question no. 14 by choosing a degree of readiness represented by a numerical value from 1 (definitely yes) to 5 (not at all). A contingency table was compiled from the collected data and the statistical methods described in the previous section were applied (Table 11).
Based on the calculations, the following results were found:
Pearson’s Chi-squared      χ2 = 20.2986
Critical value of Chi-squared   15.5073
p-value               p = 9.264 × 10−3
Cramer’s contingency coefficient  V = 0.1189
Pearson’s contingency coefficient  C = 0.2313
Based on the results, we conclude that there is a statistically significant relationship between the variables, while the dependence is weak. It is clear from the results that companies that have integrated all three management systems showed the highest level of preparedness for the crisis caused by the pandemic. Almost 60% of them confirmed that they were definitely prepared for the crisis. Enterprises that have integrated at least one of these management systems showed a slightly higher level of preparedness than enterprises that have none of them integrated. These results are presented in Table 12 and Figure 3.

5. Discussion

Based on the results of the statistical examination, we conclude that one of the hypotheses was rejected due to the absence of a statistically significant relationship between the variables. For the remaining two hypotheses, the presence of a statistically significant relationship between the variables was proven. For one of the hypotheses, the presence of a weak relationship has been demonstrated, so we consider it partially confirmed. For the other confirmed hypothesis, the presence of an average dependence has been demonstrated and, hence, we consider it confirmed.
The aggregate data analyses show that the degree of integration of CM, RM, and BCM systems in small and medium-sized enterprises is influenced not only by the time in business but also by the sector in which these entities carry out their business activities. In the case of the business duration, the enterprises with a business duration of up to two years showed the lowest level of integration of CM, RM, and BCM systems, where 50.00% of these entities integrated none and another 50.00% integrated one or two systems. On the contrary, the highest level of integration was reported by enterprises with a time in business of more than 25 years. Here, 10.94% of them had no CM, RM, and BCM systems integrated, 81.25% integrated at least one system and 7.81% integrated all three systems. When the dependence of the integration of the selected management systems on the business sector was observed, the following factors were found to be significantly related. The lowest levels of integration of CM, RM, and BCM systems were reported by the accommodation and catering (32.00% no system, 68.00% at least one system) and other services (31.10% no system, 65.05% at least one system, 4.85% all three systems). On the other hand, the highest level of integration was shown by the agricultural sector (100.00% at least one system) and industry in general (2.78% no system, 97.67% at least one system, 5.56% all three systems). The construction sector also showed a high level of integration of the CM, RM, and BCM systems. Based on these data, we can state that the highest tendency to implement CM, RM, and BMC systems is demonstrated by SMEs operating on the market for more than 25 years, especially in the sector of industry in general, agriculture and construction. On the contrary, young enterprises operating on the market for up to two years, focusing mainly on the service, accommodation and catering sectors, had the lowest tendency to implement the CM, RM, and BCM systems. The vast majority of enterprises, regardless of their time in business and the sector in which they operate, have integrated one or two systems.
Hypothesis H1 is confirmed as there is a statistically significant relationship between the variables, which shows an average dependence. It was found that the degree of integration of all three systems increases in direct proportion to the time of operation of enterprises, while the most significant growth appeared in the category of enterprises older than 25 years. A similar dependence occurs for the integration of at least one of these systems, although a slight decrease in the degree of integration can be observed for a business duration between 10 and 25 years. On the contrary, enterprises in the category of operating for up to 5 years show the highest increase in integration of at least one of the above systems. The evolution of the global or local economy, or developments in individual sectors, may have had a significant impact on this category, which may have caused a significant increase in the integration of at least one of the systems in younger enterprises. Thus, longer-operating companies generally show a higher degree of integration of CM, RM, and BCM systems. A longer time in business means a higher probability that the company has been confronted with a situation in which it needed to implement one of the mentioned systems. Since longer-operating companies also showed a higher level of integration of CM, RM, and BMC systems, it is possible to perceive the importance of these systems in building long-term business sustainability. Brand (2022) and Yang (2022) argue that global crisis events such as the COVID-19 pandemic will inevitably highlight the need to address business sustainability and increase the resilience of enterprises against disruption in times of crisis. This need is more significant in the case of SMEs [67,68].
SMEs are considered the most vulnerable, as they are the most sensitive to sudden changes in the business environment, primarily due to their limited options and resources for solving crisis situations. Our results show that, in the SME segment, there is a strong connection between the long-term sustainability of the business and the degree of implementation of RM, CM, and BCM systems in these enterprises. This is also confirmed by Vasovič (2022), who states that one of the factors influencing business sustainability is ensuring the implementation of CM and BCM in the company to generally improve the management of processes and activities [69]. Ewertowski (2022) also considers CM, RM, and BCM as important means to increase the resilience and protection of businesses against all kinds of crisis phenomena, as well as against human failure. Crisis phenomena originating in both the internal and external environment of the company represent potential threats to sustaining the business. CM, RM, and BCM systems can be perceived as important in the sustainability of business. Regarding the results, we also agree with these statements, as SMEs with established CM, RM, and BCM systems are more successful in responding adequately to various interruptions to business activities, not only in their internal environment but also within their supply chains. We therefore consider the mentioned systems to be key elements in fulfilling the long-term business goals of SMEs [70]. We conclude that long-standing businesses are able to successfully handle crisis events thanks to CM, RM, and BCM systems. However, we also consider as important the role of other factors, such as the size of the company, its financial stability, the setup of internal processes, the business sector, and other factors. Mošková (2023) considers each of these factors as important in determining the characteristics and approach of the company toward the effects of global crises. For sustainability, we consider it important to examine how these systems relate to the length of business operation [12]. Abu Bakar considers the correct implementation of BCM as a decisive factor in improving the ability of a company to build sufficient resilience to be able to withstand crises and uncertainties in the long term [71]. Bajgorič (2022) and Riglietti (2022) highlight the importance of RM and BCM in establishing and implementing framework measures to increase resilience. Their importance grows with the number of changes and crisis situations that occur in the business environment increase while contributing to building the long-term sustainability of the business [72,73].
We do not consider hypothesis H2 confirmed, as the presence of a statistically significant relationship between the variables has not been proven. We conclude that the degree of a firm’s exposure to the global crisis represented by the COVID-19 pandemic is not related to the degree of integration of CM, RM, and BCM systems. This fact may have resulted from several factors. The first may be the specifics of the pandemic, which caused a significant impact on enterprises irrespective of the level of integration of CM, RM, and BCM systems. Another factor may be that the level of impact on enterprises may not directly reflect how the enterprises themselves managed the crisis and the role that the integration of CM, RM, and BCM systems played. These findings and the related circumstances correspond to Ostapenko (2021), who perceives properly embedded and implemented methods and procedures of risk management as a means of enabling the company to propose and implement the necessary measures leading to the reduction of risks and their undesirable effects on time. However, this process primarily requires the correct implementation of these management systems and their process frameworks. However, he points out that it is clear from the very nature of the risks and management tools that the undesirable effects of the risks resulting from the global crisis can never be eliminated or removed completely [74]. In our research, SMEs were unable to prevent the impact of risks arising from the global crisis on their business activities. Businesses were not able to apply preventive measures against the impacts of the global crisis caused by the pandemic. Filip (2011) claims that in case of specific unexpected impacts of the global crisis, companies could implement reactive measures, leading to the mitigation of its effects. However, this procedure can only be applied after they appear [75]. We conclude that the basic prerequisite for the ability to apply reactive measures is the readiness of enterprises to address crisis situations. We state that influencing the company itself leads to its reaction through the implementation of appropriate measures. Influencing the business is therefore the basic impulse leading to the effort to prevent the spread and negative impact of risks with subsequent interruption or termination of business activity.
Hypothesis H3 is considered to be partially confirmed as there is a statistically significant relationship between the variables, while the dependence between them is weak. We found that the highest level of overall preparedness (levels 1 and 2) for managing the pandemic was primarily shown by those companies that have integrated all three systems, CM, RM, and BCM (71.43%). The category of enterprises with the integration of at least one of the systems reached an aggregate readiness rate at the level of 31.51%, and the category without the integration of CM, RM, and BCM systems has an aggregate readiness rate at the level of 25.32%. Not one of the companies that had integrated all the CM, RM, and BCM systems showed an overall unpreparedness for the pandemic. On the contrary, companies without integrated CM, RM, and BCM systems showed overall unpreparedness at the level of 45.57%. For all businesses, regardless of size or time in business, as the level of CM, RM, and BCM integration increases, so does the level of pandemic preparedness. There is a dependence between the degree of integration of CM, RM, and BCM elements in the company and the extent to which the company was prepared to handle the global crisis brought about by the pandemic. However, the weak dependence suggests that other factors also had a significant impact on the preparedness to handle the pandemic. Similarly, Rumman explains the significant impact of the pandemic and the adopted government measures on most companies in all business sectors, which, according to him, describes the specific nature of this crisis. Furthermore, the author considers the restricted movement of people and restricted personal contact as the most important factor, which primarily affected industries with a strong link to personal interaction with customers. This led to significant problems in precisely the sectors related to personal transport, accommodation, catering, and tourism. According to Rumman, it was these government measures that affected the supply chains, including the affected SMEs, in a specific way. It is very difficult to prepare for this type of third-party restrictions in advance, especially in the context of their temporal variability [76]. Following the results of our research, we agree with his statement that, regardless of the level of integration of management systems, it was almost impossible to prepare for these changes, which caused significant problems for companies in terms of maintaining their business. Another element that plays an important role in building the resilience of the enterprise during global crises is the CM and RM systems. The importance of CM, RM, and BCM systems in the area of preparedness as a means of ensuring the overall resilience of SMEs is also confirmed by the statements of the authors Pires and Alves. According to them, the management CM and RM systems, and above all, the BCM system, play a key role in building the resilience and readiness of the enterprise. Their role rests in the protection of critical resources, the minimization of financial losses and the holding of financial and material flows during a crisis situation. Another benefit of these systems is the company’s proactivity in preparing for crisis situations, which brings greater trust among stakeholders and emphasizes awareness of the need for prosperity even in uncertain and challenging times [77]. Following other authors, our research also supports the notion of significant connections between building a culture of preparedness through the implementation of CM, RM, and BCM systems and the overall level of resilience of the enterprise and its ability to overcome crisis situations through minimizing damage to its business or reputation. Other authors confirm our conclusions by emphasizing that the resilience of the organization largely corresponds to and depends on the company’s ability to adapt to unexpected dangers and manage to mitigate their effects. They consider this as one of the integral functions of contemporary CM and RM. Both of these systems are already relatively well established in practice and known for a long time [78,79,80].
Based on our research, we agree with the claims of other authors that although the last decade has witnessed growing interest in investigating issues related to crisis management in SMEs [35,58,81], the role and importance of innovative and iterative approaches to business processes at the micro level (e.g., marketing, employment) during such crises remains largely unaddressed. The existing lack of empirical research in the field of crisis management applied in SMEs is considered relatively significant [35,59,82], especially in the context of the increased susceptibility of these business entities to economic complications resulting from the impact of global crises. There is a need for further research in the field of the integration of management systems in the management of SMEs as it is important in solving the above-mentioned problems [83]. Comparing the results of this research with the authors’ claims confirms the importance of the integration of CM, RM, and BCM as key systems for SMEs in times of crisis to strengthen their ability to handle unexpected events. Although the CM, RM, and BCM systems do not directly prevent the company from being affected by the global crisis, they have a significant impact on the level of its preparedness and ability to effectively face the consequences and thus minimize the undesirable effects on long-term sustainability as well as current operability. In the environment of a globalized business environment characterized by the occurrence of hybrid and specific global crises, we consider it crucial to apply systems that provide a sufficient degree of flexibility and the ability to include the broad nature of new threats. We thus agree with Herbane, Elliott, and Swartz (2004) that BCM, derived from disaster recovery and crisis and risk management, has evolved to include a broader set of participants, threats, techniques, and responses [7]. We also perceive the importance of the BCM system in the context of the current requirements of stakeholders and other supply chain entities, who emphasize the long-term stability of business partnerships. Any organization that cannot afford to experience business interruption and loss should have a properly implemented BCM. VComply (2020) states that RM can enable organizations to identify and assess potential risks in various areas, such as operational, financial, regulatory, reputational, etc. It helps to understand the critical risks that could affect business continuity and enables proactive efforts to mitigate the negative impacts of a global crisis [1].
Based on this research, we confirm that there is a lack of empirical research focused specifically on the impact of dynamic global and hybrid crises on the rapidly changing environment of global business [83]. Since the SME sector is a key component of the economic body, we consider research in this area to be a critical condition for building resilience and the long-term sustainability of the economic establishment. Concerning the expected future development in this area, we consider it appropriate to continue with research based on the requirements of the business sector, with a focus on the optimization of elements of CM, RM, and BCM and adaptation to the specific requirements of SMEs. It is necessary to investigate the mechanisms of the effect of these specific crises on individual types of businesses and their integral parts.

6. Conclusions

Global crises and adverse events bring various impacts in different sectors and economic areas. Regarding the size of a business, the category of SMEs is important as they are considered to be one of the main building blocks of the national economies of developed countries, where they represent the absolute majority of active businesses and play an extremely important role in the creation and maintenance of supply chains. We consider it extremely important to focus on ways to increase the resilience and preparedness for global crisis situations and minimize their negative impacts. We can stress the great importance of the elements of CM, RM, and BCM in the preparedness of SMEs and their long-term development. Although the COVID-19 pandemic, as one of the most significant global crises of recent years, brought many specificities that business entities have not encountered to a large extent so far, these businesses were able to significantly increase their preparedness for such a situation by proper implementation of CM, RM, and BCM systems. The global crisis associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has brought about a lot of experience and new knowledge on what factors affect the whole society and SME sector in a globalized world.
Our research has brought about important insights into how CM, RM, and BCM systems can reduce the impact of global crises on the SME sector. The research assumptions and theoretical foundations of the research were confirmed, particularly the importance of these systems in building the resilience and sustainability of SMEs as fundamental elements of the economy. We provided a general overview of the importance of CM, RM, and BCM systems for SMEs in a wide range of business sectors, and thus a basis for further research was created. A significant contribution of this research is the confirmation of the assumption of the significant role of CM, RM, and BCM systems, even in the case of global crises and atypical threats that can easily spread in a globalized business environment.
However, certain limitations also result from the nature of the conducted research. Above all, the research results refer to the environment of SMEs within the Slovak Republic, which creates room for influencing the results through the specific characteristics of this business environment at the national level and the specific conditions in which SMEs develop in this country. This situation creates space for further research on how differences in the business environment at the national level affect the resilience and sustainability of SMEs associated with the implementation of CM, RM, and BCM systems. Then, it could be possible to identify and systematically remove weak points in the future. Other limitations are related to the specific effects of the business sector, the very structure of the companies, and a considerable degree of subjectivity in the self-assessment of the degree of influence and preparedness of the companies. Similarly, Mošková et al. (2023) state that the specific impact of government measures during the impact of COVID-19 differed considerably in individual countries and for individual business sectors. As additional factors, Mošková et al. (2023) also identify regional differences in the business environment in Slovakia and the specifics of the impact of the crisis associated with the COVID-19 pandemic [66].
Recently, a comparison has been performed between two economic crises, the economic crisis caused by the pandemic and the climate crisis. People have raised the question of whether the response to the economic recession caused by COVID-19 and the response to the climate emergency are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. This could be because the COVID-19 outbreak presents opportunities to advance the climate agenda alongside broader transitions to sustainability in production and consumption [14,84,85]. Like every other crisis, this one carries not only threats but also opportunities. It offers the opportunity to improve the functioning of the SME segment through the implementation of the lessons learned.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.F. and K.B.; methodology, K.F.; software, K.F.; validation, K.B., M.H. and J.S.; formal analysis, K.B.; investigation, K.F.; resources, K.B.; data curation, P.P.; writing—original draft preparation, K.F.; writing—review and editing, P.P., K.B. and M.H.; visualization, K.F.; supervision, J.S.; project administration, K.B.; funding acquisition, K.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by UNIZA grant project number 18765 and KEGA 034ŽU-4/2023 Implementation of the results of scientific research activities into the teaching process and creation of new study materials at the second level in the study program Crisis Management.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset is available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. What Is Business Continuity Risk? VComply. 4 December 2020. Available online: https://www.v-comply.com/blog/what-is-business-continuity-risk/ (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  2. Gibb, F.; Buchanan, S. A framework for business continuity management. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2006, 26, 128–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hajipour, V.; Aminian, M.; Gharaei, A.; Jalali, S. A business retrieval model using scenario planning and analytics for life during and after the pandemic crisis. Healthc. Anal. 2021, 1, 100004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Fadun, O.S. Promoting business continuity management (BCM) implemation by small-medium-sized enterprises (smes) in sub-saharan Africa: Implication and challenges. J. Risk Insur. Pract. 2017, 3, 29–42. [Google Scholar]
  5. Kato, M.; Charoenrat, T. Business continuity management of small and medium size enterprises: Evidence from Thailand. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2018, 27, 577–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carty, K.S. Towards proactive capabilities—Based continuity framework for the hospitality and tourism industry. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2021, 13, 418–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Herbane, B.; Elliot, D.; Swartz, E.M. Business Continuity Management: Time for a strategic role? Long Range Plan. 2004, 37, 435–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nazanin, S. Continuity of small businesses when facing increased flood risk due to global climate change impacts: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 82, 103316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ellram, L.M.; Tate, W.L.; Billington, C. Offshore outsourcing of professional services: A transaction cost economics perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 2008, 26, 148–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Akkermans, H.; Van Oppen, W.; Wynstra, F.; Voss, C. Contracting outsourced services with collaborative key performance indicators. J. Oper. Manag. 2019, 65, 22–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aladejebi, O.; Oladimeji, J.A. Business continuity management among small hotels in Nigeria. Sch. J. Econ. Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 208–218. [Google Scholar]
  12. Mošková, E. Procesne Orientovaný Model Manažmentu Rizík. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Žilina, Žilina, Slovakia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  13. Du, L.J.; Razzaq, A.; Waqas, M. The impact of COVID-19 on small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): Empirical evidence for green economic implications. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 1540–1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chandak, A.; Yeravdekar, R.; Shinde, R.; Bhosale, K. COVID-19 Affected Workers of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises. Cardiometry 2022, 23, 765–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Iancu, A.; Popescu, L.; Varzaru, A.A.; Avram, C.D. Impact of COVID-19 Crisis and Resilience of Small and Medium Enterprises. Evidence from Romania. East. Eur. Econ. 2022, 60, 352–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sarker, M.R.; Rahman, S.M.A.; Islam, A.K.M.H.; Bhuyan, M.F.F.; Supra, S.E.; Ali, K.; Noor, K.M.A. Impact of COVID-19 on Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bundy, J.; Pfarrer, M.D.; Short, C.E.; Coombs, W.T. Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. J. Manag. 2017, 43, 1661–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Allianz Risk Barometer 2024—Rank 2: Business Interruption. Allianz. January 2024. Available online: https://commercial.allianz.com/news-and-insights/expert-risk-articles/allianz-risk-barometer-2024-business-interruption.html (accessed on 13 April 2024).
  19. Moh, G.M.; Wong, J. Business Continuity Management Implementation for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises [online]. Continuity Central. 3 June 2015. Available online: https://www.continuitycentral.com/index.php/news/business-continuity-news/338-business-continuity-management-implementation-for-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises (accessed on 15 April 2024).
  20. Papla, R.; Jeltajevová, D.; Pak, D. Strategic Agility or Resilience: What Should Smesfocus on during the Crisis? In Proceedings of the Scientific Collection Interconf, Seattle, DC, USA, 19–20 January 2022; pp. 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Quratulain Syahirah, A.A.; Mohd Hafiz, H.; Spencer Hedley, M. Systematic literature review of Business Continuity Management (BCM) practices: Integrating organisational resilience and performance in Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) BCM framework. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 99, 104135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. UK Cabinet Office Press Released. Business Continuity Guide Launched. GOV.UK. 2013. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/business-continuity-guide-launched (accessed on 19 May 2024).
  23. Auzzir, Z.A. A Business Continuity Management (BCM) Framework for Disaster Resilient SMEs in Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nasiren, M.D.A.; Abdullah, M.N. Critical success factors on the BCM implementation in SMEs. J. Adv. Res. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2016, 3, 105–122. [Google Scholar]
  25. Srihirun, J.; Mumwong, J.; Songjaren, C.; Sooksomsatarn, K. Business continuity plan for tour operators during COVID-19 crisis in Thailand. Psychol. Educ. J. 2021, 55, 1458–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Paunescu, C.; Argatu, R. Critical functions in ensuring effective business continuity management: Evidence from Romanian companies. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2020, 21, 497–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Carracedo, P.; Puertas, R.; Marti, L. Research lines on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on business. A text mining analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 132, 586–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Seetharaman, P.; Puertas, R.; Marti, L. Business models shifts: Impact of COVID-19. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 54, 102173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Yağmur, Ö.B.; Myrvang, N.A. The effect of organizational agility on crisis management process and organizational resilience: Health sector example. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2023, 96, 103955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Çalışkan, A. Crisis management: A scale development study. J. Turk. Soc. Sci. Res. 2020, 5, 106–120. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mokline, B.; Abdallah, M.A.B. Organizational resilience as response to A crisis: Case of COVID-19 crisis. Contin. Resil. Rev. 2021, 3, 232–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hu, C.; Yun, K.H.; Su, Z.; Xi, C. Effective crisis management during adversity: Organizing resilience capabilities of firms and sustainable performance during COVID-19. Sustainability 2022, 14, 13664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ma, B.; Zhang, J. Tie strength, organizational resilience and enterprise crisis management: An empirical study in pandemic time. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2022, 81, 103240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Weick, K. Enacted sensemaking in crisis situations. J. Manag. Stud. 1988, 25, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Williams, N.; Doern, R.; Vorley, T. Special issue on entrepreneurship and crises: Business as usual? An introduction and review of the literature. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2019, 31, 400–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management—Guidelines. Available online: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:31000:ed-2:v1:en (accessed on 14 April 2024).
  37. Robertson, R.; Beaven, A.; Coolbear, T.; Hill, J.; Kirk, T.; McCullough, G.; Piper, M.; Venter, P. Multi-faceted and holistic risk management for business-critical food-safety events causing major disruption to both small and large businesses—An illustrative model. Food Control 2022, 134, 108714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Iborra, M.; Safón, V.; Dolz, C. What explains the resilience of SMEs? Ambidexterity capability and strategic consistency. Long Range Plan. 2020, 53, 101947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Supriadi, L.S.R.; Pheng, L.S. Business Continuity Management in Construction; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; ISBN 9811354103. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sawalha, I.H.; Anchor, J.R.; Meaton, J. Continuity culture: A Key Factor Building Resilience and Sound Recovery Capabilities. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2015, 6, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. International Labour Organisation (Ilo). Multi-Hazard Business Continuity Management: Guide for Small and Medium Enterprises; International Labour Organisation (Ilo): Geneva, Switzerland, 2011; ISBN 9789221265337. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jia, X.; Chowdhury, M.; Prayag, G.; Chowdhury, M.M.H. The role of social capital on proactive and reactive resilience of organizations post-disaster. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 2020, 48, 101614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Business Continuity and Crisis Management. Management Quarterly. 2003; pp. 27–33. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=e1967ff1daefdf19263c33d0a3978fd1c943dc9b (accessed on 18 April 2024).
  44. Dahlberg, R.; Guay, F.; Vorley, T. Creating resilient SMEs: Is business continuity management the answer? In WIT Transactions on The Built Environment; WIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 975–984. [Google Scholar]
  45. Duchek, S. Organizational resilience: A capability-based conceptualization. Bus. Res. 2019, 13, 215–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Boin, A.; Comfort, L.K.; Demchak, C.C. Designing Resilience: Preparing for Extreme Events; University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2010; 349p. [Google Scholar]
  47. Rai, S.S.; Singh, N.K. Organizational resilience and social-economic sustainability: COVID-19 perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 12006–12023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Paul, H.; Budhwar, P.; Bamel, U. Linking resilience and organizational commitment: Does happiness matter? J. Organ. Eff.-People Perform. 2020, 7, 21–37. [Google Scholar]
  49. Do, H.; Budhwar, P.; Shipton, H.; Nguyen, H.D.; Nguyen, B. Building organizational resilience, innovation through resource-based management initiatives, organizational learning and environmental dynamism. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 141, 808–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kim, Y. Organizational resilience and employee work-role performance after a crisis situation: Exploring the effects of organizational resilience on internal crisis communication. J. Publ. Relat. Res. 2020, 32, 47–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bustinza, O.F.; Vendrell-Herrero, F.; Perez-Arostegui, M.; Parry, G. Technological capabilities, resilience capabilities and organizational effectiveness. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 1370–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Beuren, I.M.; Dos Santos, V.; Theiss, V. Organizational resilience, job satisfaction and business performance. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 2021, 71, 2262–2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zahari, A.I.; Mohamed, N.; Said, J.; Yusof, F. Assessing the mediating effect of leadership capabilities on the relationship between organisational resilience and organisational performance. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2021, 49, 280–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Janaćković, G.; Vasović, D.; Nikolić, V. On the connection between business continuity management andorganizational resilience. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference: Management and Safety—M&S 2022, Online, 10 June 2022; Volume 17, pp. 35–40, ISBN 978-953-48331-5-5. Available online: https://www.european-safety-engineer.org/MS2014/MS-2022_Zbornik%201.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2024).
  55. Karunaratne, D.R. Organizational Resilience: A Paradox-Based Conceptualization. Vidyodaya J. Manag. 2022, 8, 123–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Herrmann, M.R.; Haberland, P.; Riese, C.R. Development of a Business Model Resilience Framework for Managers and Strategic Decision-makers. Schmalenbach J. Bus. Res. 2022, 74, 575–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Burhan, M.; Salam, M.T.; Hamdan, O.A.; Tariq, H. Crisis management in the hospitality sector SMEs in Pakistan during COVID-19. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 98, 103037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Pearson, C.; Clair, J. Reframing crisis management. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Skierka, I. When shutdown is no option: Identifying the notion of the digital government continuity paradox in Estonia’s eID crisis. Gov. Inf. Q. 2023, 40, 101781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Komendátová, D.; Müllerová, J. Korelácia a Kontingencia. SSZP.eu. 2018. Available online: https://www.sszp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018_conference_NEP__p-62__Komend%C3%A1tov%C3%A1D_Mullerov%C3%A1J__f4.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2024).
  61. Luha, J. Kvotový výber. Forum Stat. Slovacum 2007, 1, 2–16. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ostertagová, E. Aplikácia Pearsonovho Testu Dobrej Zhody v Technickej Praxi [Online]. SJF TUKE 2011. 2011. Available online: https://www.sjf.tuke.sk/transferinovacii/pages/archiv/transfer/19-2011/pdf/267-268.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2024).
  63. Titko, M.; Novák, L.; Jánošíková, M. Praktická Štatistika, 1st ed.; EDIS—UNIZA: Žilina, Slovakia, 2021; 146p. [Google Scholar]
  64. Malé a Stredné Podnikanie v Číslach v Roku 2021. SBA Slovak Business Agency. 2022. Available online: https://monitoringmsp.sk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/MSP_v_cislach_2021_final.pdf (accessed on 29 March 2024).
  65. Miery Závislosti Dvoch Znakov. UMV Science. 2023. Available online: https://umv.science.upjs.sk/zezula/stgjax/k14jax.html (accessed on 2 April 2024).
  66. Mošková, E.; Brutovský, M.; Furiak, K.; Buganová, K. Business Interruption Management in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in Slovakia. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 2023, 10, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Brand, F.S.; Blaese, R.; Weber, G.; Winistoerfer, H. Changes in Corporate Responsibility Management during COVID-19 Crisis and Their Effects on Business Resilience: An Empirical Study of Swiss and German Companies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yang, C.Y.; Di, F.X. The repelling factors of the management accounting methods under the COVID-19-case studies based on the scenario of private enterprises. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2022, 89, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vasović, D.; Stojanović, A.; Janaćković, G. Analysis of risk and crisis management guidelines defined by various system standards and regulations at the glance of business continuity management. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference: Management and Safety—M&S 2022, Online, 10 June 2022; Volume 17, pp. 1–6, ISBN 978-953-48331-5-5. (Online). Available online: https://www.european-safety-engineer.org/MS2014/MS-2022_Zbornik%201.pdf (accessed on 19 April 2024).
  70. Ewertowski, T. A Standard-Based Concept of the Integration of the Corporate Recovery Management Systems: Coping with Adversity and Uncertainty during a Pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Abu Bakar, Z.; Yaacob, N.A.; Udin, M.Z.; Hanaysha, J.R.; Loon, L.K.; Deraman, S. Critical Success Factors of Effective Business Continuity Management: A Malaysian Case Study. In Proceedings of the 8th International Economics and Business Management Conference: The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Pahang, Malaysia, 28–29 November 2017; pp. 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bajgorić, N.; Turulja, L.; Alagić, A. Business Continuity Management, Disaster Recovery Planning: Compliance in Practice. In Always-On Business; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Riglietti, F.G. Business continuity management as a key enabler of supply chain resilience: A conceptual paper. IFAC Pap. 2022, 55, 2197–2202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ostapenko, M.; Kholboeva, U. Analysis of the Effectiveness of Quality Management Tools Aimed at Risk-Management of Organizations. MATEC Web Conf. 2021, 346, 03054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Filip, S.; Šimák, L.; Kováč, M. Manažment Rizika; Sprint Dva: Bratislava, Slovakia, 2011; 199p. [Google Scholar]
  76. Rumman, A.A. Impact of strategic vigilance and crisis management on business continuity management. J. Manag. Inf. Decis. Sci. 2022, 25, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  77. Pires, R.; Alves, M.C.G. The impact of environmental uncertainty on accounting information relevance and performance: A contingency approach. Economies 2022, 10, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Supardi, S.; Hadi, S. New perspective on the resilience of smes proactive, adaptive, reaction from business turbulence: A systematic review. J. Xi’an Univ. Archit. Technol. 2020, 12, 1265–1275. [Google Scholar]
  79. Alshehhi, M.A.; Hamdan, M.N.B. Evaluating the Impact of Crisis Management Leadership on Business Continuity from An Islamic Perspective. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2022, 12, 122–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nyakato, E.; Alasan, I.I. Crisis Management Planning as a Management Technique for the Survival of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMES) in Uganda Crisis Management Planning. Int. J. Innov. Res. Technol. 2022, 7, 1370–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kuckertz, A.; Brändle, L.; Gaudig, A.; Hinderer, S.; Morales Reyes, C.A.; Prochotta, A.; Steinbrink, K.M.; Berger, E.S.C. Startups in times of crisis—A rapid response to the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2020, 13, e00169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Herbane, B. Exploring crisis management in UK small- and medium-sized enterprises. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 2013, 21, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lu, Y.; Wu, J.; Peng, J.; Lu, L. The perceived impact of the COVID-19 epidemic: Evidence from a sample of 4807 SMEs in Sichuan Province China. Environ. Hazards 2020, 19, 323–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cohen, M.J. Does the COVID-19 outbreak mark the onset of a sustainable consumption transition? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2020, 16, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Markard, J.; Rosenbloom, D. A tale of two crises: COVID-19 and climate. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2020, 16, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Systems 12 00234 g001
Figure 1. Level of integration of CM, RM, and BCM in SMEs by business sector.
Figure 1. Level of integration of CM, RM, and BCM in SMEs by business sector.
Systems 12 00234 g001
Systems 12 00234 g002
Figure 2. Graph of percentage shares for hypothesis H1.
Figure 2. Graph of percentage shares for hypothesis H1.
Systems 12 00234 g002
Systems 12 00234 g003
Figure 3. Graph of percentage shares for hypothesis H3.
Figure 3. Graph of percentage shares for hypothesis H3.
Systems 12 00234 g003
Table 1. Basic information about the implementation of the survey.
Table 1. Basic information about the implementation of the survey.
Scope of the statistical file597,171 enterprises
Scope of the original statistical sample1145 enterprises
Scope of the reduced statistical sample359 enterprises
Table 2. Summary results for Q1.
Table 2. Summary results for Q1.
Business SectorAbsolute Frequency
Accommodation and catering75
Business services67
Construction38
Industry36
Transport, information28
Agriculture12
Other services103
Table 3. Summary results for Q3.
Table 3. Summary results for Q3.
Time in BusinessAbsolute Frequency
0 to 2 years32
2 to 5 years78
6 to 10 years58
11 to 15 years58
16 to 20 years33
21 to 25 years36
26 or more years64
Table 4. Summary results for Q4.
Table 4. Summary results for Q4.
Implemented SystemAbsolute Frequency
BCM132
RM115
CM94
Time management9
Marketing management1
None69
Table 5. Summary results of Q10.
Table 5. Summary results of Q10.
Level of ImpactAbsolute Frequency
Definitely yes (1)119
Rather yes (2)72
Do not know (3)77
Rather no (4)56
No (5)35
Table 6. Summary results for Q14.
Table 6. Summary results for Q14.
Level of PreparednessAbsolute Frequency
Prepared (1)40
Rather prepared (2)71
Do not know (3)107
Rather unprepared (4)73
Unprepared (5)68
Table 7. Relationship between the business sector and the level of integration of CM, MR, and BCM.
Table 7. Relationship between the business sector and the level of integration of CM, MR, and BCM.
Within Your Company, Do You Have the CM, RM, and BCM Systems Integrated into the Management?
All 3 SystemsAt Least 1 SystemNone
In what industry do you do business?Accommodation and catering24610
Business services17500
Construction2360
Industry1332
Transport, information4240
Agriculture0120
Other services31675
Table 8. Contingency table for hypothesis H1.
Table 8. Contingency table for hypothesis H1.
Within Your Company, Do You Have the CM, RM, and BCM Systems Integrated into the Management?
All 3 SystemsAt Least 1 SystemNoneTotal
How long have you been in business (months to years)?Up to 2 years0161632
2–5 years0621678
6–10 years051758
11–15 years2451158
16–20 years025833
21–25 years027936
More than 25 years552764
Total727874359
Table 9. Table of percentage shares for hypothesis H1.
Table 9. Table of percentage shares for hypothesis H1.
Within Your Company, Do You Have the CM, RM, and BCM Systems Integrated into the Management?
All 3 SystemsAt Least 1 SystemNone
How long have you been in business (months to years)?Up to 2 years01616
2–5 years06216
6–10 years0517
11–15 years24511
16–20 years0258
21–25 years0279
More than 25 years5527
Total727874
Table 10. Contingency table for hypothesis H2.
Table 10. Contingency table for hypothesis H2.
Has the Situation Associated with the COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Your Business (1—Definitely Yes, 5—Not at All)?
Definitely Yes (1)Rather Yes (2)Do Not Know (3)Rather No (4)No (5)Total
Within your company, do you have the CM, RM, and BCM systems integrated into the management ?All 3 systems610007
At least 1 system8256624330273
None31151513579
Total11972775635359
Table 11. Contingency table for hypothesis H3.
Table 11. Contingency table for hypothesis H3.
Were You Prepared for Handling the COVID-19 Pandemic (1—Definitely Yes, 5—Not at All)?
Definitely Yes (1)Rather Yes (2)Do Not Know (3)Rather No (4)No (5)Total
Within your company, do you have the CM, RM, and BCM systems integrated into the management?All 3 systems412007
At least 1 system2858825154273
None81223221479
Total40711077368359
Table 12. Table of percentage shares for hypothesis H3.
Table 12. Table of percentage shares for hypothesis H3.
Within Your Company, Do You Have the CM, RM, and BCM Systems Integrated into the Management?
Definitely Yes (1)Rather Yes (2)Do Not Know (3)
Were you prepared for handling the COVID-19 pandemic (1—definitely yes, 5—not at all)?Prepared (1)57.14%10.26%10.13%
Rather prepared (2)14.29%21.25%15.19%
Do not know (3)28.57%30.04%29.11%
Rather unprepared (4)0.00%18.68%27.85%
Unprepared (5)0.00%19.78%17.72%
Total100%100%100%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Furiak, K.; Buganová, K.; Prievozník, P.; Hudáková, M.; Slepecký, J. Research on the Impacts of Global Entrepreneurial Environment Changes on Small and Medium-Sized Entrepreneurship. Systems 2024, 12, 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12070234

AMA Style

Furiak K, Buganová K, Prievozník P, Hudáková M, Slepecký J. Research on the Impacts of Global Entrepreneurial Environment Changes on Small and Medium-Sized Entrepreneurship. Systems. 2024; 12(7):234. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12070234

Chicago/Turabian Style

Furiak, Kristián, Katarína Buganová, Pavol Prievozník, Mária Hudáková, and Jaroslav Slepecký. 2024. "Research on the Impacts of Global Entrepreneurial Environment Changes on Small and Medium-Sized Entrepreneurship" Systems 12, no. 7: 234. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12070234

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop
OSZAR »