Quality of Business Environment of the SME: A Sectoral View

Abstract

The aim of the article is to find out differences in the perception of selected factors that determine the business environment among selected groups of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), divided according to the sector of the national economy they belong to. The first group included SMEs from the sector of transport and services. The second group included SMEs from the construction, manufacturing and agriculture sectors. The questionnaire was completed by 459 SMEs in the Czech and the Slovak Republics. To evaluate the formulated hypotheses, the Chi-square test and the Z-score were used. The case study showed interesting findings. The SMEs in transport and services perceive
the competitive environment as more acceptable than the SMEs in construction, manufacturing and agriculture. In addition, the SMEs in transport and services are of the opinion that customers accept prices of their products and services to a greater extent than the SMEs in construction, manufacturing and agriculture. There are also significant
differences between selected groups of SMEs in assessing the quality of the judicial system in commercial law and the view that the current level of macroeconomic indicators supports entrepreneurship and creates interesting business opportunities. The national economy sector is not an important criterion in assessing financing, the family
environment, R&D infrastructure, the quality of the business environment or the quality of education. The paper brings interesting findings and new incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises; for organizations supporting the business environment; for further research and discussion on the cross-sectoral assessment of the business environment quality and its important factors.

Full text

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.26552/com.C.2020.4.163-172
163
ISSN 1335-4205 (Print), ISSN 2585-7878 (Online) / © 2020 UNIVERSITY OF ZILINA COMMUNICATIONS 22 (4) 163-172
Jan Dvorsky - Jaroslav Belas - Ivana Novotna - Martin Fero - Zora Petrakova
The aim of the article is to find out differences in the perception of selected factors that determine the business
environment among selected groups of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), divided according to the sector
of the national economy they belong to. The first group included SMEs from the sector of transport and services. The
second group included SMEs from the construction, manufacturing and agriculture sectors. The questionnaire was
completed by 459 SMEs in the Czech and the Slovak Republics. To evaluate the formulated hypotheses, the Chi-square
test and the Z-score were used. The case study showed interesting findings. The SMEs in transport and services perceive
the competitive environment as more acceptable than the SMEs in construction, manufacturing and agriculture. In
addition, the SMEs in transport and services are of the opinion that customers accept prices of their products and
services to a greater extent than the SMEs in construction, manufacturing and agriculture. There are also significant
differences between selected groups of SMEs in assessing the quality of the judicial system in commercial law and
the view that the current level of macroeconomic indicators supports entrepreneurship and creates interesting
business opportunities. The national economy sector is not an important criterion in assessing financing, the family
environment, R&D infrastructure, the quality of the business environment or the quality of education. The paper brings
interesting findings and new incentives for small and medium-sized enterprises; for organizations supporting the
business environment; for further research and discussion on the cross-sectoral assessment of the business environment
quality and its important factors.
Keywords: transport, national economy, SME, case study, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic
QUALITY OF BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT OF THE SME:
A SECTORAL VIEW
Jan Dvorsky1,*, Jaroslav Belas1, Ivana Novotna2, Martin Fero2, Zora Petrakova3
1Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tomas Bata University in Zlin, Czech Republic
2Department of Languages and Humanities, Faculty of Materials Science and Technology, Slovak University of Technology Trnava,
Slovakia
3Institute for Forensic Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak University of Technology, Bratislava, Slovakia
*E-mail of corresponding author: j1dvorsky@utb.cz
evaluation of selected factors of the quality of the business
environment by the group of the SMEs from the transport
and services sector in comparison to the SMEs from the
construction, manufacturing and agriculture sectors. The
subject of comparison consists of selected economic,
legislative, social, technological factors and competitive
environments. The case study was carried out in 2017 and
2018 on a sample of 459 small and medium-sized enterprises
in selected sectors of the national economy.
The article has the following structure. The first
part presents current knowledge in the segment of small
and medium-sized enterprises in given sectors of the
national economy. In the second part, the aim of the
article is determined; statistical hypotheses are formulated;
methodology of data collection and sample structure of
respondents and statistical methods used are presented.
The next section presents the most important empirical
results of the case study and evaluation of statistical
hypotheses. The discussion summarizes the most important
outcomes and compares the results to conclusions of
articles from other authors in a similar field of research. In
conclusion, there are limitations of the results as well as the
future direction of research.
1 Introduction
Continuous changes in the business environment
are forcing businesses to make permanent changes and
innovations [1]. The ability of an enterprise to adapt to
continuous changes in the business environment depends
on its ability to adapt business objectives to conditions
in the business environment [2]. Attitudes of owners and
top managers towards determinants of the quality of the
business environment are a valuable source of information
for state, private and non-profit organizations. However,
the primary beneficiaries are the small and medium-
sized enterprises themselves, which can benefit from the
knowledge gained in managing SMEs [3-4]. The structure
of SMEs by sector of the national economy is one of the
criteria that can cause different perceptions of factors
determining the quality of the business environment as well
as the perception of the quality of the business environment
itself [5]. The sectoral view of the assessment of business
environment quality factors by the SMEs in the transport
and services sector provides important information not
only for the companies concerned [6-7].
The article deals with the detailed comparison of

164
DVORSKY et al.
COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020 VOLUME 22
very flexible in responding to changes that occur in the
economic system or they operate in a sector that is not of
interest to large enterprises.
Transport has several functions. According to Eisler
[18], in addition to its dominant function, which is transport
or the movement of goods and persons, it further has a
stimulating function, reflecting investment in transport
infrastructure, which ultimately initiates the country’s
economic growth, the social stabilizing function – Fabus
and Csabay [19] is of the opinion that transport has a
significant political-social dimension and each disorder - the
mismatches have a significant impact on the stability and
development of the economy and society. Another function
is the substitution function - e.g. with the Just in Time
system in place, it replaces storage in the context of freight
transport. The supply of transport is also closely related
to other services, especially tourism, where it affects the
structure of consumption and the size of services.
Surovec [20] further states that transport must, in
addition to its main function - ensure the transport demand
of society, contribute optimally to the national economic
development and to the growth of the population living
standard. This effect will only be achieved if the transport
is understood as a coherent system involving all the
types of transport of persons and goods. Novack, Gibson,
Suzuki and Coyle [21] cite a well-functioning transport
system as a requirement of an economically developed
country. Transport is, according to authors, based on the
historical, economic, social and political perspective, the
most important industry in the world.
Novack, Gibson, Suzuki and Coyle [21] also draw
attention to the negative aspect of malfunction or
insufficient functionality of the transport system, which
causes frustration of population and with it possible
economic losses. In the case of a well-functioning system,
there is an opportunity and reward for each user in different
forms. Transport plays an important role in helping to
bridge the gap in demand and supply as a part of a mass-
production approach. Looking at services, many authors
unite in their definition. For instance, Tuckova [22] defines
service as an activity, or the advantage offered by one party
to another, which is essentially intangible without customer
ownership. According to Tuckova [22], the customer buys
only the right to perform the service. Service production
may or may not be associated with a particular tangible
product. In addition, the author presents the features of
services towards which the individual opinions of the
author are converging. According to Bryson and Daniels
[23], these are the following: intangible, inseparability,
heterogeneity, difficulty in expressing value, destructibility
(services cannot be deferred - stored, e.g. missed flight) and
the impossibility of ownership.
Research and innovation are moving at a high pace.
Product innovations go hand in hand with development
of services and the constant impetus for more specific
and knowledge-intensive services - services that require
obtaining the knowledge needed to deliver them. Bryson
and Daniels [23] classify Knowledge Intensive Services as
2 Literature background
The business environment or the quality of the
business environment is a broad term. The term business
environment is used by the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Formankova,
Vajcnerova, Ryglova, Chladkova, Stojanova and Adrasko
[8] state that the quality of the business environment is
primarily determined by national legislation and national
economic aspects that ultimately affect all the sectors
of the national economy. In general, one can generalize
that the SMEs are very sensitive to quality of the business
environment.
The quality of the business environment plays an
important role in the national economic sector - in the
country’s economic system [9-10]. This concept and its
certain measurement or evaluation depend on values of
the individual components. According to Kozubikova,
Kotaskova, Dvorsky and Kljucnikov [11], the following
factors are the legal form of the enterprise, the business
activities of the corporation, the sources of financing (if at
all and to what extent the corporation uses these funds),
market, taxation and domestic taxation rate in the country,
the rate of economic growth and development, the rate
of inflation, the legal system in the country, the nature
of accounting rules, social values, international factors
(harmonization factors in certain areas), but also the
country’s culture and others [12]. This is also due to internal
factors, e. g. property-legal relations in the company,
activity of the corporation - e. g. in the context of corporate
social responsibility, etc. Civelek, Kljucnikov, Dobrovic and
Hudakova [13] also focus on the entrepreneur’s personality
in terms of their creativity and ability to be or to become
an entrepreneur. Probably the oldest form of measuring the
quality of the business environment in different countries is
the Competitiveness Index of the Countries, published by
the World Economic Forum (WEF).
In assessing the quality of the business environment,
Viturka [14] assigns the greatest importance to business
factors. Their partial factors are the proximity of the market
- the geographical location of regions in interaction with
the economic potential of the best available markets, the
factor of concentration of major companies - in the context
of location of major customers represented by economic
or non-economic entities, presence of foreign enterprises
- assessing the positive impact of foreign investment on
integration of the host country into the global economy and
the factor of supported services - higher demand for highly
specialized services (Knowledge Intensive Services).
In the context of small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), their role is considered by many authors to be
very important in the effective functioning of the economic
system [15-16]. Chladkova [17] states that SME share unique
characteristics that are determined by their nature and that
also enable them to take a special position in the economic
system. On the one hand, the SMEs generally have limited
capital resources that adversely affect corporate governance
and development, on the other hand, these companies are

QUALITY OF BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT OF THE SME: A SECTORAL VIEW
165
VOLUME 22 COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020
Slovak version:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1_H7WSPiVJZkEXdQ
x3VlGV0iJ_4ppDKRIQMXL6F8Vn-4/edit
The questionnaire was divided into three parts: i)
socio-demographic characteristics - region of operation
of the enterprise, national economy and size of enterprise;
gender, age and educational attainment of the respondent;
ii) business environment factors - economic, political,
social, technological and competitive factors; iii) business
environment quality contentions (QBE). The questions in
the questionnaires were randomly formulated in order to
really find out the respondent’s opinion. The questionnaire
also contained a control question to prevent the
questionnaire from being filled by computer. The authors
of the article evaluated 26 assertions (31.7%) from all the
questionnaire assertions to fulfil the objective. Respondents
were able to comment on the claims by one of five options:
totally disagree (A1), disagree (A2), cannot answer (A3),
agree (A4) and totally agree (A5). The following arguments
were the subject of the examination of attitudes:
F1: Macroeconomic environment: I evaluate the
macroeconomic environment as friendly for business
activity (F11); the state of the macroeconomic environment
in our country promotes business start-ups (F12); the
current macroeconomic environment supports innovative
business activities (F13); the current level of basic
macroeconomic variables (GDP, employment, inflation)
supports entrepreneurship and creates interesting business
opportunities (F14).
F2: Financing enterprises: Companies have good access
to bank loans (F21); credit terms of banks are acceptable to
companies (F22); the price of loans is acceptable to firms
(F23); banks have a positive impact on the quality of the
business environment (F24).
F3: Legal environment: I rate the level of legislation in
business as good (F31); the commercial justice system
works well (F32); law enforcement is good in our country
(F33); the legislative environment in our country is stable
(F34).
F4: Quality of education: I rate higher education in our
country as good quality (F41); I evaluate the secondary
school education as a quality one (F42); the state can
prepare quality people for us (F43); school graduates have
good knowledge and skills (F44).
F5: Infrastructure in the area of research and
development: R&D infrastructure in our country is well
built (F51); state support for R&D in the country is at a good
level (F52); R&D results in our country help entrepreneurs;
government support for R&D has an upward trend (F54).
F6: Family environment: Family environment motivates
people to do business (F61); it is easier to do business if one
of the close relatives is doing business (F62); in the family,
I have gained a lot of knowledge that helps me do business
(F63); my family helps me do business (F64).
F7: Competitive environment: The risk of new
competitors entering the sector in which I operate is
appropriate (F71); the intensity of competition in the
services where some greater knowledge of the selected
field to which the service relates is required, e.g. in the
context of scientific and technical knowledge, research and
development activities, etc. Those services require people
with higher education and professional qualifications who
can provide the client with a solution to their complex or
narrowly specific needs. Those services play an important
role in the innovation process of companies as these
activities maintain interaction with the knowledge providers
[24].
The constant diversity of services requires
their arrangement - classification according to certain
characteristic groups based on common features. Bryson
and Daniels [23] defines division of services e. g. by nature
of activities (NACE classification), by function performed
(production, distribution, personal and social services),
by mode of implementation (market services, social and
economic needs), by target services market, by COPNI
classification (classification of services by purpose).
3 Aim, methodology and methods
The aim of the article was to find out differences in
perception of selected factors that determine the business
environment among selected groups of small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) according to the sector of the national
economy. The first group included the SMEs from the
transport and services sector (T+S). The second group
included the SMEs from the construction, manufacturing
and agriculture sectors (C+M+A). The authors of the article
assume that the perception of top managers or owners of
the SMEs (herein after as respondent) to the evaluation of
selected factors will be different.
During the calendar years 2017 and 2018, more than
17,200 SMEs from the Czech and Slovak Republics were
asked to complete an online questionnaire. The total
number of addressed SMEs represented more than 5% of all
the SMEs in selected countries (CR: 9,400 SMEs, SR: 7,800
SMEs). The respondents were approached with the Bisnode
Albertine database (CR) and the Cribis database (SR) by
random sampling. The basic criterion for determining the
total set of SMEs in selected countries was the number of
employees of the enterprise (from 1 to 250 employees). The
number of respondents who responded positively to the
application was 641 SMEs (3.7% return on questionnaires).
Respondents were addressed by e-mail with a structured
request to fill in a questionnaire. The questionnaire
consisted of 82 assertions. The questionnaire was created in
two versions according to the nationality of the respondent.
The questionnaires are available on the following websites:
Czech version:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdTbrl5o
KX93-hFY2deUAOYeWHWgI-tBa3zPape_FiJAmI-Dg/
viewform

166
DVORSKY et al.
COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020 VOLUME 22
The structure of the sample according to nationality:
CR (312) and SR (329). The structure of the sample
according to the size of the company was as follows (CR/
SR): micro (258/234), small (43/71) and medium (11/24) of
the companies in the Czech Republic. The questionnaires
were responded to (CR/SR): by 236/251 of men’s and
76/78 women’s. One of the factors was
also the age
of the
company. Most respondents have had his business for more
than 10 years (CR/SR: 208/147), 48/78 of entrepreneurs
5-10 years and the rest (56/104) of the entrepreneurs have
operated
their business 1-5 years. The survey involved all
regions of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic.
Regions representation of Czech Republic was as follows:
Zlin Region (49), Moravian-Silesian Region (17), Olomouc
Region (26), South Moravian Region (22), Liberec Region
(28), Prague (17), Pardubice (17), Pilsen Region (22),
Central Region (14), Hradec Kralove (17), Highlands
(25), South Region (16), Usti Region (27) and Karlovy
Vary (15). Regions representation of Slovak Republic
was as follows: Presov Region (76), Kosice region (75),
Bratislava region (56), Banska Bystrica region (30), Zilina
region (28), Trnava region (27), Trencin region (20), Nitra
region (17). Education (CR/SR): university education
(127/224), higher education (135/95) and higher education
without graduation (50/10). Questionnaires were
addressed to entrepreneurs from different areas of the
economy (CR/SR): 109/122 were from service companies,
73/69 were from commercial companies, 53/51 from
manufacturing companies, 29/39 from the construction,
19/11 from transportation, 9/20 from agriculture and the
rest belonged to “other” (industry not mentioned in the
questionnaire).
industry in which I operate is normal (F72); my customers
accept the prices of my products and services (F73); my
suppliers demand reasonable prices for their products and
services (F74).
F8: Quality of business environment: The business
environment in our country is of good quality and suitable
for business (F81); business environment in our country is
reasonably risky and allows business (F82); conditions for
doing business in our country have improved in the last five
years (F83); business environment in our country is suitable
for starting a business (F84).
The following hypotheses have been formulated to
meet the main objective of the article:
H: There are statistically significant differences in the
perception of the macroeconomic environment (H1);
business finance (H2); legislative environment (H3);
quality of education (H4); R&D infrastructure (H5);
family environment (H6), competitive environment (H7)
and quality of business environment (H8) among selected
groups of respondents (1st group: transport and services;
2nd group: construction; production and agriculture).
Statistically significant differences between selected
groups of SMEs by national economy were compared using
the Pearson statistics at a significance level of 5%. If the
calculated p-value was less than 5% [25], an alternative
statistical hypothesis of significant differences in the number
of respondents to the claim was accepted. The calculations
were performed using free software (www.socscistatistics.
com/tests). Statistically significant differences in individual
reactions were examined by the Z-score. The calculations
were performed using free software (
www.socscistatistics.
com/tests/ztest/Default2.aspx
).
Table 1 Evaluation of indicators of macroeconomic environment
F11 T+S C+M+A F12 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 136 101 A1+A2 131 100
[%] 52.7 50.2 [%] 50.8% 49.8%
V3 41 42 V3 58 54
A4+A5 81 58 A4+A5 69 47
[%] 31.4 28.9 [%] 26.7% 23.4%
Chi-square 1.937 Chi-square 1.419
P-value 0.379 P-value 0.492
F13 T+S C+M+A F14 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 78 62 A1+A2 80 76
[%] 30.2 30.8 [%] 31.0 37.8
V3 108 87 V3 77 67
A4+A5 72 52 A4+A5 101 58
[%] 27.9 25.9 [%] 39.1 28.9
Chi-square 0.240 Chi-square 5.431
P-value 0.886 P-value 0.049

QUALITY OF BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT OF THE SME: A SECTORAL VIEW
167
VOLUME 22 COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020
business opportunities (F14) is statistically significant
(P-value of the Chi-square test is 0.049). There are
statistically significant differences in positive responses (V4
+ V5) in the perception of the indicator “F14” according to
selected groups of respondents (P-value of Z-score (2.299)
is 0.029). The hypothesis H1 was partially accepted.
Table 2 summarizes the perception of the SME financing
by enterprises by sector of the national economy.
The structure of respondents’ responses to business
finance indicators (F21, F22, F23, F24) is not statistically
significant (P-values of the Chi-square test are greater than
the level of significance - 0.05). There are no statistically
significant differences in the perception of business
finance indicators by selected groups of respondents
(P-values are greater than 0.05). The hypothesis H2 was
rejected.
4 Results
The total number of respondents in the sectors of the
national economy, such as transport, services, construction,
manufacturing and agriculture was 459 SMEs. Of these, 216
were from the Czech Republic and 243 from Slovakia; by
national economy: 258 (T+S) and 201 (C+M+A); by sex: 356
men and 103 women; by education: 247 higher education,
212 other education; by time of business: 258 more than 10
years, 201 less than 10 years.
Table 1 summarizes the perception of the
macroeconomic environment by the SME respondents by
sector of the national economy.
The structure of respondents’ responses to the current
level of basic macroeconomic variables (GDP, employment,
inflation) supports entrepreneurship and creates interesting
Table 2 Evaluation of indicators of financing enterprises
F21 T+S C+M+A F22 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 77 57 A1+A2 98 65
[%] 29.8 28.4 [%] 38.0 32.3
V3 58 48 V3 70 58
A4+A5 123 96 A4+A5 90 78
[%] 47.7 47.8 [%] 34.9 38.8
Chi-square 0.181 Chi-square 1.610
P-value 0.913 P-value 0.447
F23 T+S C+M+A F24 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 85 58 A1+A2 84 56
[%] 32.9 28.9 [%] 32.6 27.9
V3 71 62 V3 98 79
A4+A5 102 81 A4+A5 76 66
[%] 39.5 40.3 [%] 29.5 32.8
Chi-square 1.054 Chi-square 1.258
P-value 0.591 P-value 0.526
Table 3 Evaluation of indicators of legal environment
F31 T+S C+M+A F32 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 184 137 A1+A2 147 93
[%] 71.3 68.2 [%] 57.0 46.3
V3 27 24 V3 73 71
A4+A5 47 40 A4+A5 38 37
[%] 18.2 19.9 [%] 14.7 18.4
Chi-square 0.551 Chi-square 5.541
P-value 0.759 P-value 0.047
F33 T+S C+M+A F34 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 161 125 A1+A2 139 106
[%] 62.4 62.2 [%] 53.9 52.7
V3 57 45 V3 59 50
A4+A5 40 31 A4+A5 60 45
[%] 15.5 15.4 [%] 23.3 22.4
Chi-square 0.005 Chi-square 0.256
P-value 0.997 P-value 0.879

168
DVORSKY et al.
COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020 VOLUME 22
The structure of respondents’ responses to the
quality of education indicators (F41, F42, F43, F44) is not
statistically significant (P-values of the Chi-square test are
greater than the level of significance - 0.05). There are no
statistically significant differences in the perception of
indicators of quality of education by selected groups of
respondents (P-values of Z-score are greater than 0.05).
Hypothesis H4 was rejected.
Table 5 summarizes the perception of R&D
infrastructure by the SME respondents by sector of the
national economy.
The structure of respondents’ answers to the
infrastructure indicators in the area of research and
Table 3 summarizes the perception of the legislative
environment by S the ME respondents by sector of the
national economy.
The structure of respondents’ responses to the
business justice system works well (F32) is statistically
significant (P-value of the Chi-square test is 0.047). There
are statistically significant differences in positive responses
(V4 + V5) in the perception of the indicator “F32” according
to selected groups of respondents (P-value of Z-score
(2.184) is 0.039). The hypothesis H3 was partially accepted.
Table 4 summarizes the perception of the quality of
education by the SME respondents by sector of the national
economy.
Table 4 Evaluation of indicators of quality of education
F41 T+S C+M+A F42 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 100 70 A1+A2 120 84
[%] 38.8 34.8 [%] 46.5 41.8
V3 63 55 V3 61 52
A4+A5 95 76 A4+A5 77 65
[%] 36.8 37.8 [%] 29.8 32.3
Chi-square 0.882 Chi-square 1.021
P-value 0.643 P-value 0.600
F43 T+S C+M+A F44 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 178 122 A1+A2 134 104
[%] 69.0 60.7 [%] 51.9 51.7
V3 47 46 V3 59 55
A4+A5 33 33 A4+A5 65 42
[%] 12.8 16.4 [%] 25.2 20.9
Chi-square 3.438 Chi-square 1.815
P-value 0.179 P-value 0.403
Table 5 Evaluation of indicators of infrastructure in the area of research and development
F51 T+S C+M+A F52 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 110 81 A1+A2 111 85
[%] 42.6 40.3 [%] 43.0 42.3
V3 99 79 V3 103 73
A4+A5 49 41 A4+A5 44 43
[%] 19.0 20.4 [%] 17.1 21.4
Chi-square 0.287 Chi-square 1.519
P-value 0.866 P-value 0.468
F53 T+S C+M+A F54 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 73 54 A1+A2 69 51
[%] 28.3 26.9 [%] 26.7 25.4
V3 124 87 V3 117 103
A4+A5 61 60 A4+A5 72 47
[%] 23.6 29.9 [%] 27.9 23.4
Chi-square 2.296 Chi-square 1.792
P-value 0.317 P-value 0.408

QUALITY OF BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT OF THE SME: A SECTORAL VIEW
169
VOLUME 22 COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020
differences in the perception of family environment
indicators by selected groups of respondents (P-values of
Z-scores are greater than 0.05). Hypothesis H6 was rejected.
Table 7 summarizes the perception of the competitive
environment by the SME respondents by sector of the
national economy.
The structure of respondents’ responses to the risk
of new competitors entering the SME industry (F71) and
the fact that customers accept the prices OF products and
services (F73) are statistically significant (F71: P-value
of Chi-square test is 0.042; F73: P-value of Chi-square test
is 0.041). There are statistically significant differences in
positive responses (V4 + V5) in the perception of indicators
“F71 and F73” according to selected groups of respondents
development (F51, F52, F53, F54) is not statistically
significant (P-values of the Chi-square test are higher than
the level of significance - 0.05). There are no statistically
significant differences in the perception of infrastructure
indicators in the area of research and development
according to selected groups of respondents (P-values
of Z-score are greater than 0.05). The hypothesis H5 was
rejected.
Table 6 summarizes the perception of the family
environment by the SME respondents by sector of the
national economy.
The structure of respondents’ responses to family
environment indicators (F61, F62, F63, F64) is not
statistically significant. There are no statistically significant
Table 6 Evaluation of indicators of family environment
F61 T+S C+M+A F62 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 55 39 A1+A2 31 30
[%] 21.3 19.4 [%] 12.0 14.9
V3 53 38 V3 42 36
A4+A5 150 124 A4+A5 185 135
[%] 58.1 61.7 [%] 71.7 67.2
Chi-square 0.594 Chi-square 1.123
P-value 0.743 P-value 0.540
F63 T+S C+M+A F64 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 54 39 A1+A2 22 15
[%] 20.9 19.4 [%] 8.5 7.5
V3 57 34 V3 24 22
A4+A5 147 128 A4+A5 212 164
[%] 57.0 63.7 [%] 82.2 81.6
Chi-square 2.505 Chi-square 0.467
P-value 0.285 P-value 0.791
Table 7 Evaluation of indicators of competitive environment
F71 T+S C+M+A F72 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 53 42 A1+A2 49 49
[%] 20.5 20.9 [%] 19.0 24.4
V3 27 36 V3 33 22
A4+A5 178 123 A4+A5 176 130
[%] 69.0 61.2 [%] 68.2 64.7
Chi-square 5.617 Chi-square 2.068
P-value 0.042 P-value 0.355
F73 T+S C+M+A F74 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 24 30 A1+A2 41 28
[%] 9.3 14.9 [%] 15.9 13.9
V3 24 23 V3 49 30
A4+A5 210 148 A4+A5 168 143
[%] 81.4 73.6 [%] 65.1 71.1
Chi-square 4.415 Chi-square 1.981
P-value 0.041 P-value 0.371

170
DVORSKY et al.
COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020 VOLUME 22
It has also been shown that entrepreneurs are of
the opinion that the state is not able to prepare quality
people for companies (more than 60% of respondents).
Also, entrepreneurs think that school graduates do not
have good knowledge and skills (more than 50% of
respondents).
A comparison of respondents’ attitudes, divided into
two groups according to the national economy sector,
shows that there is no difference in perception of factors
such as the family environment, the quality of the business
environment, the quality of education, business financing
and R&D infrastructure.
On the other hand, differences in the assertion that
the current value of macroeconomic indicators (GDP,
unemployment and others) support entrepreneurship have
been shown. Up to 39.1% of the SMEs in the transport and
services sectors agree with this statement, compared to
28.9% of the SMEs in the construction, manufacturing and
agriculture sectors. There are also significant differences
in the argument that the judicial system in commercial law
works well. Up to 57.0% of the SMEs in the transport and
services sector disagree with this statement, compared to
46.3% of the SMEs in the construction, manufacturing and
agriculture sectors.
The greatest lack of consistency among the selected
SME groups is when assessing the factor of the competitive
environment. The SMEs in the transport and services
sectors are more in agreement with the claim (81.4%) that
the customers accept the prices of products and services
compared to the SMEs in the construction, manufacturing
and agriculture sectors (73.6%). The findings concerning the
comparison of the competitive environment between the
T+S (the transport and service sector) and the C+M+A (the
construction, manufacturing and agriculture sector) are not
consistent with the study [29]. The results of this research
are less consistent.
(F71: P-value of Z-score (1.979) is 0.044; F73: P-value of
Z-score (1.991) is 0.047). The hypothesis H7 was partially
accepted.
Table 8 summarizes the perception of the quality of the
business environment by the SME respondents by sector of
the national economy.
The structure of respondents’ responses to business
environment quality indicators (F81, F82, F83, F84) is not
statistically significant (P-values of the Chi-square test are
greater than the level of significance - 0.05). There are no
statistically significant differences in the perception of
business environment quality indicators by selected groups
of respondents (P-values of Z-score are greater than 0.05).
The hypothesis H8 was rejected.
5 Discussion
The results show that seven out of ten respondents
agree (agree or fully agree) with the indicators of the
competitive environment (entrepreneurs consider the risk
of entry of competition in the business sector appropriate;
intensity of competition in the industry is normal; customers
accept prices for products and services; the adequacy of
the prices of their suppliers’ products and services). The
findings concerning intensive competition as a factor that
impacts business environment are consistent with previous
studies [26-27].
On the other hand, six out of ten respondents
disagree (totally disagree or disagree) with the legislative
environment indicators (good level of business legislation;
quality of the judicial system in the area of commercial
law; law enforcement is good; stability of the legislative
environment). The findings concerning the legislative
environment as a factor that impacts business environment
are consistent with previous study [28].
Table 8 Evaluation of indicators of quality of business environment
F81 T+S C+M+A F82 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 156 124 A1+A2 78 61
[%] 60.5 61.7 [%] 30.2 30.3
V3 36 36 V3 37 31
A4+A5 66 41 A4+A5 143 109
[%] 25.6 20.4 [%] 47.7 47.8
Chi-square 2.458 Chi-square 0.119
P-value 0.292 P-value 0.942
F83 T+S C+M+A F84 T+S C+M+A
A1+A2 142 103 A1+A2 119 85
[%] 55.0 51.2 [%] 46.1 42.3
V3 45 42 V3 42 45
A4+A5 71 56 A4+A5 97 71
[%] 27.5 27.9 [%] 37.6 35.3
Chi-square 1.021 Chi-square 2.758
P-value 0.600 P-value 0.252

QUALITY OF BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT OF THE SME: A SECTORAL VIEW
171
VOLUME 22 COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020
businesses; family environment; R&D infrastructures; the
quality of the business environment and the quality of
education.
The authors are aware of the limitations of the case
study (e.g. the local nature of the study - 2 Central European
countries; the number of SMEs - only 459; verification of
results using one methodology; application of selected
statistical methods). The authors believe that the paper
may bring some interesting findings and new incentives
for further research and discussion on the cross-sectoral
assessment of the business environment quality and its
important factors.
The future research will focus on comparing other
factors that determine the quality of the business
environment among selected groups of SMEs. Those are
mainly the areas of monetary policy and interest rates;
state regulation and business support; state bureaucracy;
availability of human capital; private-public cooperation;
media and communication environment, or narrower
business environment. It is assumed that the attitudes
of SMEs towards the above factors will bring different
perceptions.
6 Conclusions
The aim of the article was to identify differences in the
perception of selected factors that determine the business
environment among selected groups of small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) according to the sector of the
national economy.
The results showed interesting findings. The SMEs
in transport and services perceive the competitive
environment as more acceptable than the SMEs in
construction, construction and agriculture. In addition,
the SMEs in transport and services are of the opinion
that customers accept the prices of their products and
services to a greater extent than the SMEs in construction,
manufacturing and agriculture. There are also significant
differences between selected groups of the SMEs in
assessing the quality of the judicial system in commercial
law and the view that the current level of macroeconomic
indicators (GDP, unemployment, etc.) promotes
entrepreneurship and creates interesting business
opportunities. The sector of the national economy is not
an important criterion when assessing the financing of
References
[1] CEPEL, M., STASIUKYNAS, A., KOTASKOVA, A., DVORSKY, J. Business environment quality index in the SME
segment. Journal of Competitiveness [online]. 2018, 10(2), p. 21-40. ISSN 1804-171X. Available from: https://dx.doi.
org/10.7441/joc.2018.02.02
[2] BUGANOVA, K., MORICOVA, V. Innovation of education in risk and crisis management. Turkish Online Journal of
Educational Technology. 2017, INTE-2017, p. 177-182. ISSN 2146-7242.
[3] HAVIERNIKOVA, K., KORDOS, M. Selected risks perceived by SMEs related to sustainable entrepreneurship in case of
engagement into cluster cooperation. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues [online]. 2019, 6(4), p. 1680-1693.
eISSN 2345-0282. Available from: https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(9)
[4] HUDAKOVA, M., DVORSKY, J. Analysis of the market risk sources in the small and medium-sized enterprises
of transport. Communications - Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina [online]. 2019, 21(4), p. 97-103.
ISSN 1335-4205, eISSN 2585-7878. Available from: http://komunikacie.uniza.sk/index.php/communications/article/
view/1524
[5] KLJUCNIKOV, A., BELAS, J., KOZUBIKOVA, L., PASEKOVA, P. The entrepreneurial perception of SME business
environment quality in the Czech Republic. Journal of Competitiveness [online]. 2016, 8(1), p. 66-78. ISSN 1804-171X.
Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.7441/joc.2016.01.05
[6] DVORSKY, J., PETRAKOVA, Z., POLACH, J. Assessing the market, financial, and economic risk sources by Czech and
Slovak SMEs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Knowledge [online]. 2019, 7(2), p. 30-40. ISSN 2336-2960.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijek-2019-0008
[7] TERSKIKH, V., KATARGIN, V., MOROZOVA, N. Planning and managing resources of transport enterprises. MATEC
Web of Conferences [online]. 2018, 239, 04023. eISSN 2261-236X. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1051/
matecconf/201823904023
[8] FORMANKOVA, S., VAJCNEROVA, I, RYGLOVA, K., CHLADKOVA, H., STOJANOVA, H., ANDRASKO, I. Achieving
quality and sustainability in the Czech business environment. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2018. ISBN 9781527505452.
[9] OLAH, J., VIRGLEROVA, Z., POPP, J., KLIESTIKOVA, J., KOVACS, S. The assessment of non-financial risk sources of
SMES in the V4 countries and Serbia. Sustainability [online]. 2019, 11(17), p. 1-19. eISSN2071-1050. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174806
[10] DVORSKY, J., SCHONFELD, J., KOTASKOVA, A., PETRAKOVA, Z. Evaluation of important credit risk factors in the
SME segment. Journal of International Studies [online]. 2018, 11(3), p. 204-216. ISSN 2071-8330, eISSN 2306-3483.
Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-3/17

172
DVORSKY et al.
COMMUNICATIONS 4/2020 VOLUME 22
[11] KOZUBIKOVA, L., KOTASKOVA, A., DVORSKY, J., KLJUCNIKOV, A. The impact of political factors‘ perception on
suitability of international business environment: the case of startups. Economics and Sociology [online]. 2019, 12(1),
p. 61-79. ISSN 2071-789X. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-1/3
[12] HUDAKOVA, M., MASAR, M., BUGANOVA, K. Assessment of the financial risks of the small and medium-sized
enterprises in Slovakia. In: 34th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development - 18th
International Social Congress ISC-2018 : proceedings. 2018. p. 505-513.
[13] CIVELEK, M., KLJUCNIKOV, A., DOBROVIC, J., HUDAKOVA, M. A model of measurement of the quality of business
environment in SME segment. Journal of International Studies [online]. 2016, 9(2), p. 90-102. ISSN 2071-8330,
eISSN 2306-3483. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2016/9-2/6
[14] VITURKA, M. The quality of business environment, regional competitiveness and regional development strategy of
the Czech Republic (in Czech). Prague: Grada, 2010. ISBN 9788024736389.
[15] HUDAKOVA, M., MASAR, M., LUSKOVA, M., PATAK, M. R. The dependence of perceived business risks on
the size of SMEs. Journal of Competitiveness [online]. 2018, 10(4), p. 54-69. ISSN 1804-171X. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2018.04.04
[16] BELAS, J., GAVUROVA, B., SCHONFELD, J., ZVARIKOVA, K., KACERAUSKAS, T. Social and economic factors affecting
the entrepreneurial intention of university students. Transformations in Business and Economics. 2017, 16(3),
p. 220-239. ISSN 1648-4460.
[17] CHLADKOVA, H. Selected approaches to the business environment evaluation. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et
Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis. 2015, 63(2), p. 515-523. ISSN:1211-8516.
[18] EISLER, J. Economics of transport services and the business of transport (in Czech). Praha: Oeconomica, 2004.
ISBN 8024507722.
[19] FABUS, M., CSABAY, M. State aid and investment: case of Slovakia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues
[online]. 2018, 6(2), p. 480-488. eISSN 2345-0282. Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.2(1)
[20] SUROVEC, P. Operation and economics of road transport I. (in Czech). Ostrava: Technical University of Ostrava,
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, 2000. ISBN 80-7078-735-X.
[21] NOVACK, R. A., GIBSON, B. J., SUZUKI, Y., COYLE, J. J. Transportation: a global supply chain perspective. 9. ed.
Australia: Cengage, 2019. ISBN 978-1-337-40664-2.
[22] TUCKOVA, Z. Economics of services (in Czech). Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2013. ISBN 978-80-7478-006-6.
[23] BRYSON, J. R.; DANIELS, P. W. The handbook of service industries. USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., 2007.
ISBN 978-1-84064-948-2.
[24] MARTINEZ-FERNANDEZ, C., MILES, I., WEYMAN, T. The knowledge economy at work: skills and innovation in
knowledge intensive service activities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2011. ISBN 9781847200495.
[25] HAIR, J. F., ANDERSON, R. E., BABIN, B. J., BLACK, W. C. Multivariate data analysis: a global perspective. 7. ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2010. ISBN 978-1-292-02190-4.
[26] CERA, G., BELAS, J., STRNAD, Z. Important factors which predict entrepreneur’s perception in business risk. Problems
and Perspectives in Management [online]. 2019, 17(2), p. 415-429. ISSN 1810-5467, eISSN 1727-7051. Available from:
https://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.17(2).2019.32
[27] DELERUE, H., PEREZ, M. Unilateral commitment in alliances: an optional behaviour. Journal of Management
Development [online]. 2009, 28(2), p. 134-149. ISSN 0262-1711. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710910932098
[28] ARDIC, O. P., MYLENKO, N., SALTANE, V. Access to finance by small and medium enterprises: a cross-country analysis
with a new data set. Pacific Economic Review [online]. 2012, 17(4), p. 491-513. eISSN 1468-0106. Available from:
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0106.2012.00596.x
[29] ACAR, E., YASEMIN, G. Prediction of risk perception by owners‘ psychological traits in small building contractors.
Construction Management and Economics [online]. 2011, 29(8), p. 841-852. ISSN 0144-6193, eISSN 1466-433X.
Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.611521