Basic HTML-Version
options with particular importance for a com-
prehensive risk management have been given
an increased score. The table also shows the
rank of the selected options, according to the
questionnaire results.
Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of the
metric risk management variables, as introdu-
ced in Table 3. In addition to the empirical va-
lues of minimum and maximum. Table 4 also
Shows the theoretical minimum and maximum
according to the score definitions of Table 3. By
dividing the theoretical ränge of each variable
into three subintervals of equal length, its out–
come can be briefly characterized as low, mo–
derate or high.
The 11 variables on risk management practices
described in Tables 3 and 4 have been submit-
ted to a factor analysis. The grouping result for
the 4 factor Solution is presented in Table 5.
The corresponding screen plot has justified to
take a Solution consisting of 4 factors (with ei-
genvalues above 1). As suggested in the litera-
ture, to validate the identified factors a split test
has been carried out. It confirmed the total fac–
tor Solution, the "even" Solution nearly perfect-
ly, and the "odd" one with slight deviation.
The identified abstract factors will be given the
following descriptive labels, covering as much as
possible of the issues of the induced grouping.
Factor
1:
"Risk management responsibilities"
Factor 1 tackles responsibilities for risk manage–
ment Implementation (Questions 2.1a) and risk
Cluster
#1
#3
Total
S ize
by
annua l
tumover
(Q1.5)
Mi c ro (up to 2 mi l l ion Euro )
t l
Sma l l
(more than 2 to 10 mi l l ion Euro)
71
Med i um (more than 10 to 50 mi l l ion Euro)
27
Large (more than 50 mi l l ion Euro)
Ü
No Statement
4
Total
11
.1
l(H).0°.i,
c ' = 14.073 d r = 8 p = 0.080 Sign. < Ol
y
.7%
6:.8°'o
2.1.9%
0.0
°/o
15
I I
(I
6
8.6%
42,9%
.11.4%
0.0%
17.1%
6
66
35
55.9"!
0
29,7»,„
1.7%
7.6°,,
20
152
73
19
7.5%
57.1%
27
.4%
0.8»o
7
. ^ 0
35 100.0% 118 KlO.d"» 266 IWI . ( I%
Size by numbe r of employees (Q 1.6)
Mi c ro (up to 9 employees)
Smal l (10 to 49 employees)
Med i um( 50 to 249 employees)
Large (250 to 499 employees)
Total
c'-^ 12.682 d f ^ 6 p = 0.048 Sign. <0.0S
5 4.4%
3 8.6%
7 5.9»/o
15 5.6%
19 l6.8»o
3 8.6% 16 1.1.6% 38 14..1%
89 7K.8% 25 71.4% 89 75.4% 203 76.3%
0
().()%
4 11.4%
6 5.1% 10 1.8%
113 100.0% 35 l(M).0»/« 118 100.0% 266 l(M).0%
I ndus t r i a l sector
{Q\.\)
Construction
Engineer ing
Infomiat ion technology
Auditing/consulting/training
Tradc/serv'ice/logistics
Total
c-'= 12.343 d f = 8 p
= O
.I37 Sign. > 0.1
34
10 . 1%
7 20.0°/o 32 27
.1%
73 27.4%
42
17
.2%
I I .11
.4%
42
15
.6% 95
15
.7%
11
9
.7%
8 22.')°/o
18 l5
..1
°o
37 l3
.9
»o
12 10.6%
1 2
.9
«'o
16
11
.6% 29
I ().')»
o
14 12.4%
8
22
.9%
10 8.5% 32 12.0%
113 100.(1% 35 100.0»o 118 100.0% 266 lOO.O»»
Lega l
form
(Q 1.2)
Unincorporated firm
Incoiporated firm
Total
c-' = 0.452 df = 2 p = 0.798 Sign. > 0.1
20
17.7%
7 20.0% 25 21.2% 52 I9..s%
93 S2..1% 28 80.0% 93 78.8% 214 80.5%
113 100.0% 35 l()0.0°o 118 100.0% 266 l(K).0«/o
P a r t o f a g r o u p ( 0 1 3 )
Yes
No
Total
c = 6.699 df = 2 p = 0.035 Sign. < 0.05
37 11.0% 20 57 . 1% 43 .16,8% 100 37.9»/„
75 67,Cr.
1 5 4 2 , ? %
74 63.2% 164 62-1%
112 100.0%
15
lOO.Wb 117 100.0% 264 100.0%
Aud i ted (Q 1.4)
Ye s
No
Total
c ' = 2.050 df = 2 p = 0.359 Sign. > 0.1
84 75.0% 30 85.7% 87 74.4% 201 76 . 1%
28 25.0% 5 14.3% 30 25.6% 63 23.9%
112 1IH).(I»
35
ll
)0.0
"o
117
l
()0.0
°o 264 UKUCb
E a r l y
warning System established
(Q1.9a)
Establ ishcd
Planned
Not planned
Total
c-=l l .26l d r = 4 p = 0.024 Sisn.<0.05
Table 6: Cluster Analysis: Demographics Summary of tbe 3 Cluster Solution
88 78.6% 24 68.6% 71 60.2% 183 69.1%
16 14.3%
9 25.7% 28 21.7% 53 20.0°'o
S ^ . 1% 2 5.7% 19 16.1% 29 lO.y-o
112 100.0% 35 IOü.0% 118 100.0% 265 IOü.0%
87