Helena Majdúchová et al.
Proceedings of Scientific Papers
University of Economics in Bratislava
Faculty of Business Management
Department of Business Economy
Foundation Manager
Masaryk University Press
Brno 2022
Helena Majdúchová et al.: “Sustainable Business Development Perspectives 2022”
Proceedings of Scientific Papers
Scientific Committee
|
prof. Ing. Peter Markovič, PhD. DBA |
University of Economics in Bratislava, Slovakia |
|
doc. Dr. Michael Zhelyazkov Musov |
University of National and World Economy, Bulgaria |
|
doc. Ing. Michaela Krechovská |
University of West Bohemia, Czech Republic |
|
Dr hab. Grzegorz Głód, prof. UE |
University of Economics in Katowice, Poland |
|
Dr. Ariel Mitev |
Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary |
|
doc. Dr. sc. Ivana Načinović Braje, PhD. |
University of Zagreb, Croatia |
|
prof. Mgr. Peter Štarchoň, PhD. |
Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia |
|
doc. Ing. Mgr. Gabriela Dubcová, PhD. |
University of Economics in Bratislava, Slovakia |
|
doc. Ing. Mgr. Jakub Procházka, PhD. |
Masaryk University, Czech Republic |
|
doc. Ing. Jindra Peterková, PhD. |
Moravian Business College Olomouc, Czech Republic |
|
prof. Ing. Lilia Dvořáková, CSc. |
University of West Bohemia, Czech Republic |
|
doc. Ing. et Ing. Renáta Myšková, PhD. |
University of Pardubice, Czech Republic |
|
doc. RNDr. Ing. Hana Scholleová, PhD. |
University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic |
|
prof. Ing. Zuzana Dvořáková, CSc. |
University of Chemistry and Technology, Prague, Czech Republic |
|
prof. Ing. Jiří Hnilica, PhD. |
University of Economics in Prague, Czech Republic |
|
doc. Oleksandr Litvinov, DSc. |
Odesa National Economic University, Ukraine |
|
prof. Julie Elston, PhD. MBA |
Oregon State University, USA |
|
prof. Yevhen Ivchenko, Dr. Sc |
Volodymyr Dahl East Ukrainian National University, Ukraine |
Helena Majdúchová et al.: “Sustainable Business Development Perspectives 2022”
Proceedings of Scientific Papers
Reviewers:
prof. RNDr. Ing. Ľudomír Šlahor, CSc.
prof. RNDr. Darina Saxunová, PhD.
Editors:
PhDr. Mária Kmety Barteková, PhD.
Ing. Dana Hrušovská, PhD.
Ing. Mária Trúchliková, PhD.
Ing. Monika Raková, PhD.
Papers have not been linguistically and editorially edited. The authors are responsible for the content and level of individual contributions.
Approved by the Pedagogical and Publishing Committee of the University of Economics in Bratislava in the publishing program for 2022 as a peer-reviewed proceedings of scientific works.
Publisher Masaryk University Press, Brno 2022
Pages 318
ISBN 978-80-280-0197-1 (online ; html)
https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P280-0197-2022
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
Content
Mária Trúchliková 1 & Jakub Lukáč 1
1 University of Economics in Bratislava
https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.P280-0197-2022-25
Family business is the most ubiquitous form of business organization in any world economy. Behavior of family businesses is to some extent different than other types of business. The key problem and factor of family businesses is sustainability. Family businesses have many specific features -family firms tend to be more stable, accountable, and trustable on the one hand, but on the other hand, they must combine private and business life and deal with succession issues. Research on the sustainability of family businesses is relatively new, and there are three aspects - sustainability in this type of business has been defined as those concerns related to continuity, perseverance, the second aspect includes actions related to the transparency and values of the company, internal audits, respect for the environment, relationships with both suppliers and customers or consumers, and interaction with the community, all focused on strengthening the viability of the company and the third view focuses on financial stability and sustainable financial performance. We focused on three models – Altman Z-score, IN05 and Binkert´s model a analysed period before and after outbreak COVID-19 pandemic. We monitored how COVID-19 pandemic influenced financial stability of family businesses in selected sector – construction.
Keywords : sustainability, family business, financial health, COVID-19.
In general, family businesses are important part in any world economy, with extensive experience on the market, more stability, business heritage from generation to generation, and real economic contributions. In Europe, this unique category plays a vital role for the economy: Family businesses account for a 40 -50 % of all jobs of European private employment. (European Family Businesses, 2022).
Family-owned enterprises are becoming more and more successful on the market due to their exceptional flexibility, high level of commitment of family members participating in the business, and the ability to meet the diversified needs of customers. These types of businesses have a significant economic impact, but not enough attention has been addressed to them (Mura et al, 2021). Despite the absence of a legal definition of the term “family business” in Slovak republic, the most cited is definition of European Commission: A firm, of any size, is a family business, if:
The majority of decision-making rights are in the possession of the natural person(s) who established the firm, or in the possession of the natural person(s) who has/have acquired the share capital of the firm, or in the possession of their spouses, parents, child or children’s direct heirs.
The majority of decision-making rights are indirect or direct.
At least one representative of the family or kin is formally involved in the governance of the firm.
Listed companies meet the definition of family enterprise if the person who established or acquired the firm (share capital) or their families or descendants possess 25% of the decision-making rights mandated by their share capital.
One of the key factor and specific aspect of family businesses is sustainability. The first view of concept of sustainability in family businesses has often been associated with the longevity of family businesses, although there are only a few specific studies that combine the two (Antheaume et al., 2013). Firms’ longevity has been analysed under different perspectives, mainly to conceptually identify the key factors and common organizational features of long-standing firms. Studies show that only 30% of family businesses survive when passed to the second generation and this rate drops to 10-15% when the business passes to the third generation (SBA, 2018). Many researchers strive to identify new aspects, which are crucial for sustainability, such as innovativeness or a risk-taking attitude. The study by Marques et al. (2020) structured and analysed determinants of family business growth using a fuzzy cognitive mapping technique and system dynamic approach. The authors observed a positive impact on the creation of new business areas and ventures based on new technologies. Urbaníková et al. (2020) found out, that the most common types of innovation are product and process innovations, and medium-sized family businesses introduce more types of innovations than small family businesses. One of the aspects is generational change in the management structures of family businesses.
Although this topic has a very long history, there is still an ongoing discussion about what is beneficial for the sustainability of family businesses. Many recently published papers strive to identify new aspects, which are crucial for sustainability, such as innovativeness or a risk-taking attitude. Some of them result in the claim that family businesses are very different among themselves so it cannot be easily measured as to whether it is crucially beneficial or not (Chua et al., 2012; Vollero et al., 2019). The goal is to propose a way to create a sustainable value that lasts for generations.
The literature indicates that sustainability practices may be particularly important to family-owned and -managed businesses due to various factors, most prominently the inclination to pass the business to the next generation and the company’s long-term business orientation (Le Breton & Miller, 2006). The sustainability of family firms is nurtured by the desire of entrepreneurs to pass on a healthy firm to future generations. This leads to decisions aimed at ensuring the permanence of the company and, for the most part, translates into firm success (Herrera & de las Heras-Rosas, 2020). Engaging in pro-sustainability actions can help family businesses achieve and maintain a positive reputation (Gómez-Mejía et al., 2007) and, more broadly, protect their socio-emotional wealth (SEW), which is connected to non-financial goals and emotional aspects, including intergenerational firm survival, social embeddedness and family control (Cruz et al., 2014).
Some researchers result in the claim that family businesses are very different among themselves so it cannot be easily measured as to whether it is crucially beneficial or not (Vollero et al., 2019). The meaning of the concept of sustainability for family businesses is about solving the problems faced at the business scale and the successful realization of the management transfer to the next generation. The goal is to propose a way to create a sustainable value that lasts for generations. Vollero et al. (2019) created model of transgenerational value, i.e. the sustainability of the family business, is therefore likely to be a combination of three systems’ outcomes:
- Business growth, in terms of business longevity, the firm’s performance, its ability to innovate, etc.;
- Family success, i.e. the family’s cohesion and functionality, its survival as an enterprising family (family business’ longevity), family wealth, etc.;
- Quality of local embeddedness (shared community values, social ties, etc.)
Crration of transgenerational value in family businesses
Source: (Vollero, A., Siano, A., & Della Volpe, M.., 2019)
Transgenerational value therefore becomes the result of both the entrepreneurial ability of the family to transfer value to future generations of the family and the ability to ensure the balancing of three systems’ objectives, i.e. family functionality, the growth of the business and positive impact on local communities, e.g. the ability of the organization to preserve the wealth of the territory in which the family firm was founded and grew (Vollero & De Falco, 2015).
The second point of view is the growing discussion regarding the potential of family firms to embrace practices of corporate sustainability – the tendency to behave in economically, socially, and environmentally responsible ways in a manner that benefits all stakeholders and the community at large (Le Breton–Miller & Miller, 2006). Sustainability practices as those that work towards the longer term benefit of all of an organization’s stakeholders – the broader community included. Within the extant research, several internal factors of family business sustainability have been studied, including long-term orientation, corporate governance, family involvement in ownership and management, values and educational background, relationship with stakeholders, community commitment, reputation and firm size (Broccardo et al, 2019).
Positive and negative relationships between sustainability and family business and moderating factors
|
Positive relationships between sustainability and family business |
The dark side of family firm sustainability |
Moderating factors |
|
Stewardship and long-term orientation |
Conflict |
family background as related to values, parenting and education |
|
Family values and reputation |
Socioemotional restrictions |
firm governance as revealed by ownership structure and control, executive management, and board composition |
|
Agency costs |
Owner–owner agency costs |
the environment of the firm as reflected by demographics, institutional context, and techno-economic conditions |
|
the nature of the organization – its strategy, structure and external ties. |
Soruce: (Le-Breton Miller & Miller, 2006).
Domaňská et al. (2022) examined Polish family businesses and they found out that family businesses represent divergent levels of implementation of sustainable development solutions and actions. By considering 30 detailed aspects of social, environmental and economic pillars of sustainable development, participating family businesses were divided into three separate groups sustainable development laggards“, “non-formal sustainable development followers” and „sustainable development trailblazers”. Zhu & Lu (2020) focused on corporate environmental responsibility (CER) of family businesses and results show that family ownership is negatively related to CER investments, which suggests that private family firms with tight ownership control are less likely to spend on CER when compared to firms with less concentrated ownership structure. Results of research also show that when venture capital investments come in from developed markets, the aforementioned negative relationship is reversed.
The third point of view is connected with financial health of businesses and financial strength for family businesses. An effective warning system is crucial for the prediction of the financial situation in corporate governance (Pavlicko et al., 2020). Family businesses have to face the same problems as the non-family businesses. But there are some specific characteristics in context of financial performance and risk of financial distress. Many authors (Anderson and Reeb, 2003) have revealed that family businesses perform better than others. The reason is the involvement family members in management of the business and risk aversion of family members. The earliest researchers were Beaver and Altman and their models are one of the most cited in literature. Their models are based on calculation of financial ratios from financial statements. These ratios can be used to predict financial distress of company or bankruptcy. Altman considered simultaneous impact of several indicators on the financial condition of the company by combining them into a single measure (Z-score). He used the technique of the multivariate linear discriminant analysis to achieve this purpose (Prusak, 2018). Later, some researchers created models based on logit and probit analysis – Ohlson O-Score was derived from a study of more than 2000 companies (Rahman et al., 2021) (used set of nine accounting ratios) or Zmijewski (three-variable distress prediction model) (Ashraf et al., 2019).
The data was obtained from Finstat database. This database contains financial data about all subjects with a registered ID in the Slovak Republic. We analysed financial situation of family businesses operating in the construction sector. We analysed a sample of 50 family businesses in Slovakia. The analysis carried out was based on models predicting financial distress. When selecting the bankruptcy risk models, the aim was to select those which can be applied to family businesses and do not make restrictions concerning publicly quoted shares or the availability of market capitalization. Two very popular models were selected: Altman Z-score and the IN05 Test. For analysis we used also Binkert model. The Altman Z-score (multiple discriminant function) is a linear combination of the following five financial ratios:
Altman Z-score indicators
|
Prediction model and formula |
Variables |
The classification of the resulting values |
|
Altman Z-score
Z = 0,717X1 + 0,847X2 + 3,107X3 + 0,420X4 + 0,998X5 |
X1 = working capital/total assets X2 = retained earnings/total assets X3 = earnings before interest and taxes/ total assets X4 = equity/liabilities X5 = sales/total assets |
Z' > 2.9 “Safe” Zone
1.23 < Z' < 2. 9 “Grey” Zone
Z' < 1.23 “Distress” Zone |
Source: own processing according to Altman (1968)
The IN05 model, on the other hand, can be written in the following form (Neumaier & Neumaierová, 2005):
Index IN05 indicators
|
Prediction model and formula |
Variables |
The classification of the resulting values |
|
IN05
IN05 = 0,13Y1 + 0,04Y2 + 3,97Y3 + 0,21Y4 + 0,09Y5 |
Y1 = ratio of total assets to total liabilities Y2 = ratio of earnings before interest and taxes to interest Y3 = the ratio of earnings before interest and taxes to total assets Y4 = ratio of operating revenue to total assets Y5 = ratio of current assets to current liabilities |
IN05 < 0.9 company does not create value for its owners or may even destroy value
IN05 > 1.6 the company creates new value for its owners
1.6 > IN05 > 0.9 the results are inconclusive (a grey area) |
Source: Neumaier & Neumaierová, 2005
Binkert and Zallay constructed model for business companies:
Binkert model indicators
|
Prediction model and formula |
Variables |
The classification of the resulting values |
|
Binkert
B = 0,18Z1 + 0,147Z2 + 0,237Z3 + 0,377Z4 + 0,514Z5 + 0,505Z6 + 0,271Z7 + 0,207Z8 |
Z1 = ratio of current assets to current liabilities Z2 = ratio of equity to non-current assets Z3 = ratio of net profit for the accounting period after tax to revenues Z4 = ratio of revenues to added value Z5 = ratio of total assets 1 to total assets 0 Z6 = ratio of equity 1 to equity 0 Z7 = ratio of liabilities 1 to liabilities 0 Z8 = ratio of net profit for the accounting period after tax to (equity + non-current liabilities + funds) |
B > 4,35 Safe zone -4,35 >B > 4,35 Grey zone -4,35 > B Distress zone |
Source: Neumaier & Neumaierová, 2005
Following the working definition of family businesses referred to earlier in this paper, the criteria defined in Act no. 431/2002 Coll. on Accounting were examined for each business. The categories of companies by size were:
Micro accounting unit (total assets did not exceed €4 000,000 net turnover did not exceed €700,000, average number of employees did not exceed 10)
Small accounting unit (total sum of assets exceeded €350,000 but did not exceed €4,000,000, net turnover exceeded €700,000 but did not exceed €8,000,000, the average calculated number of employees exceeded 10 but did not exceed 50)
Large accounting unit (total assets exceeded €4 000,000 net turnover exceeded €8 000,000, average number of employees exceed 50)
Over the 2010-2018 period, the turnover of the Slovak broad construction sector grew by 40.0%, reaching EUR 20.5 billion. In 2020, it declined to EUR 18.4 billion, a decrease of 11.6% over the previous year (while this represented an increase of 25.7% over the 2010 level). This decline reflects the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the sector. We tried to evaluated financial health of family businesses in this sector before year 2020 (before COVID-19) and after to find out how COVID-19 pandemic affected this type of businesses and their health.
Three models that are tested will be listed here consecutively. For each model, the total data sample is presented first, followed by the companies grouped according to size. Tables 5 shows the bankruptcy test results for Altman Z-scores. In case of the IN05 model, three out of the five elements of the index refer directly to earnings generating capability of the companies. The overall results are displayed in Table 6. The last Table 7 shows results of Binkert´s model. According to the Altman Z score and IN05 tests, the distribution of the overall family businesses in construction sector by size is quite similar. In case of Binkert´s model results of family businesses are in the „grey zone.“
Altman Z-scores of family businesses in construction grouped by size
|
Category of companies |
Altman Z-score |
||||||||
|
Z' > 2.9 |
1.23 < Z' < 2. 9 |
Z' < 1.23 |
All |
|
|||||
|
Reference year :2019 |
|||||||||
|
micro |
13,0 |
61,90% |
8,0 |
40,00% |
9,0 |
100,00% |
30,0 |
60,00% |
|
|
small |
8,0 |
38,10% |
11,0 |
55,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
19,0 |
38,00% |
|
|
large |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
5,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,00% |
|
|
Total |
21,0 |
100,00% |
20,0 |
100,00% |
9,0 |
100,00% |
50,0 |
100,00% |
|
|
Reference year :2020 |
|||||||||
|
micro |
12,0 |
60,00% |
9,0 |
45,00% |
9,0 |
90,00% |
30,0 |
60,00% |
|
|
small |
8,0 |
40,00% |
10,0 |
50,00% |
1,0 |
10,00% |
19,0 |
38,00% |
|
|
large |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
5,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,00% |
|
|
Total |
20,0 |
100,00% |
20,0 |
100,00% |
10,0 |
100,00% |
50,0 |
100,00% |
|
|
Reference year :2021 |
|||||||||
|
micro |
12,0 |
63,16% |
8,0 |
42,11% |
10,0 |
83,33% |
30,0 |
60,00% |
|
|
small |
7,0 |
36,84% |
10,0 |
52,63% |
2,0 |
16,67% |
19,0 |
38,00% |
|
|
large |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
5,26% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,00% |
|
|
Total |
19,0 |
100,00% |
19,0 |
100,00% |
12,0 |
100,00% |
50,0 |
100,00% |
|
IN05 of family businesses in construction grouped by size
|
Category of companies |
IN 05 |
|||||||
|
IN05 > 1.6 |
1.6 > IN05 > 0.9 |
IN05 < 0.9 |
All |
|||||
|
Reference year :2019 |
||||||||
|
micro |
10,0 |
52,63% |
4,0 |
44,44% |
16,0 |
72,73% |
30,0 |
60,00% |
|
small |
8,0 |
42,11% |
5,0 |
55,56% |
6,0 |
27,27% |
19,0 |
38,00% |
|
large |
1,0 |
5,26% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,00% |
|
Total |
19,0 |
100,00% |
9,0 |
100,00% |
22,0 |
100,00% |
50,0 |
100,00% |
|
Reference year :2020 |
||||||||
|
micro |
14,0 |
63,64% |
7,0 |
70,00% |
9,0 |
50,00% |
30,0 |
60,00% |
|
small |
7,0 |
31,82% |
3,0 |
30,00% |
9,0 |
50,00% |
19,0 |
38,00% |
|
large |
1,0 |
4,55% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,00% |
|
Total |
22,0 |
100,00% |
10,0 |
100,00% |
18,0 |
100,00% |
50,0 |
100,00% |
|
Reference year :2021 |
||||||||
|
micro |
8,0 |
53,33% |
7,0 |
53,85% |
15,0 |
68,18% |
30,0 |
60,00% |
|
small |
6,0 |
40,00% |
6,0 |
46,15% |
7,0 |
31,82% |
19,0 |
38,00% |
|
large |
1,0 |
6,67% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,00% |
|
Total |
15,0 |
100,00% |
13,0 |
100,00% |
22,0 |
100,00% |
50,0 |
100,00% |
Binkert´s model of family businesses in construction grouped by size
|
Category of companies |
Binkert´s model |
|||||||
|
B > 4,35 |
-4,35 >B > 4,35 |
B < -4,35 |
All |
|||||
|
Reference year :2019 |
||||||||
|
micro |
4,0 |
44,44% |
24,0 |
61,54% |
1,0 |
100,00% |
29,0 |
59,18% |
|
small |
4,0 |
44,44% |
15,0 |
38,46% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
19,0 |
38,78% |
|
large |
1,0 |
11,11% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,04% |
|
Total |
9,0 |
100,00% |
39,0 |
100,00% |
1,0 |
100,00% |
49,0 |
100,00% |
|
Reference year :2020 |
||||||||
|
micro |
8,0 |
66,67% |
20,0 |
55,56% |
2,0 |
100,00% |
30,0 |
60,00% |
|
small |
3,0 |
25,00% |
16,0 |
44,44% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
19,0 |
38,00% |
|
large |
1,0 |
8,33% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,00% |
|
Total |
12,0 |
100,00% |
36,0 |
100,00% |
2,0 |
100,00% |
50,0 |
100,00% |
|
Reference year :2021 |
||||||||
|
micro |
4,0 |
40,00% |
25,0 |
64,10% |
1,0 |
0,00% |
30,0 |
60,00% |
|
small |
5,0 |
50,00% |
14,0 |
35,90% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
19,0 |
38,00% |
|
large |
1,0 |
10,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
0,0 |
0,00% |
1,0 |
2,00% |
|
Total |
10,0 |
100,00% |
39,0 |
100,00% |
1,0 |
0,00% |
50,0 |
100,00% |
*only 49 family businesses in 2019 were evaluated
We could conclude that, although the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic caused some forms of restrictions or increased costs to all business entities throughout Slovakia, not all industries
touched as well. Some sectors were only indirectly affected and were not directly affected
none of the restrictions (eg industry, construction, agriculture).
The revised Altman Z-score indicates low bankruptcy probabilities: about 20 per cent of companies are on the verge of bankruptcy, and more than 40 per cent of them are projected to survive with stable financials. Tests are similiar for every reference year. As expected, micro companies perform worse than than small companies. According to Altman Z-score, family businesses perform good with predictability of survival. Accordingly, their ability to adapt to crisis financial constraints (the retreat of bank credits giving ground for the accounts suppliers’ funds) is more promising. In today’s business environment, the cash-flow based indices have proved to be more reliable for measuring financial stability and added values. In this respect, IN05 predicted better chances for medium-sized family businesses in generating cash flows.
The results of these two model are very similar. We can state that large differences did not occur even before and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, as we expected. Results of the third model (Binkert´s model) are different – more family businesses were classified like companies with uncertain future and financial performance.
The paper is the output of the scientific grant VEGA no. 1/0240/20 “Financial Aspects of Sustainable Business – Enterprise Succession Solution for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises” (100 %).
Anderson, R. & Reeb, D. (2003). Founding-family ownership, corporate diversification, and firm leverage. The Journal of Law & Economics, 46 (2), 653–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/377115
Antheaume, N., Robica, P. & Barbelivien, D. (2013). French family business and longevity: Have they been conducting sustainable development policies before it became a fashion? Business History , 55 (6), 942-962.
Ashraf S, G. S., Félix, E., Serrasqueiro, Z. (2019). Do Traditional Financial Distress Prediction Models Predict the Early Warning Signs of Financial Distress ? Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 12 (2), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12020055
Broccardo, L., Truant, E. & Zicari, A. Internal corporate sustainability drivers: What evidence from family firms? A literature review and research agenda. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management , John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/1 0.1002/csr.1672
Cruz, C., Larraza–Kintana, M., Garcés–Galdeano, L. & Berrone, P. Are family firms really more socially responsible? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 38 (6), 1295-1316. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12125
De Falco, S.E. & Vollero, A. (2015) Sustainability, longevity and transgenerational value in family firms The case of Amarelli. Sinergie Italian Journal of Management, 33 (97), 291-309. https://doi.org/ 10.7433/s97.2015.18
Domańska, A., Wiecek-Janka, E. & Zajkowski, R. (2022). Implementing Sustainable Development Concept: A Typology of Family Firms in Poland. Sustainability, 14 (7), 4302. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su14074302
European Family Businesses. About European Family Businesses. Available on: https://europeanfamilybusinesses.eu/about-european-family-businesses/
Gómez-Mejía, L.R., Haynes, K.T., Núñez-Nickel, M., Jacobson, K.J.L. & Moyano-Fuentes, J. Socioemotional wealth and business risks in family-controlled firms: Evidence from Spanish olive oil mills. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52 (1), 106–137. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2189/asqu.52.1.106
Herrera J. & de las Heras-Rosas C. (2020) Economic, Non-Economic and Critical Factors for the Sustainability of Family Firms. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity , 6 (4), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040119
Le Breton–Miller, I. & Miller, D. (2006). Why do some family businesses out–compete? Governance, long–term orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6) , 731–746. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2006.00147.x
Marques, C. F., Ferreira, A. F. F., Zopounidis, C. & Banaitis, A. (2022). A system dynamics-based approach to determinants of family business growth. Annals of Operation Research, 311 , 799-819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03524-9
Mura, L., Hajduova, Z., Smorada, M. & Jakubova, Z. (2021). Employee motivation and job satisfaction in family-owned businesses. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19 (4), 495-507. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(4).2021.40
Neumaier, I., & Neumaierová, I. (2005). Index IN 05. Proceedings of the Evropské finanční systémy, 143-148.
Pavlicko, M., Durica, M. & Mazanec, J. (2021). Ensemble Model of the Financial Distress Prediction in Visegrad Group Countries. Mathematics, 9 (16), 1886. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9161886
Prusak, B. (2018). Review of Research into Enterprise Bankruptcy Prediction in Selected Central and Eastern European Countries. International Journal of Financial Studies, 6(3), 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs6030060
Rahman, M., Li Sa, Ch., Masud, A. K. (2021). Predicting Firms’ Financial Distress: An Empirical Analysis Using the F-Score Model. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14 (5), 199. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14050199
Slovak Business Agency. (2019). Štúdia rodinného podnikania na Slovensku. Available on: http://www.sbagency.sk/sites/default/files/3_studia_rodinneho_podnikania_na_slovensku.pdf
Strazovska, H., Strazovska, Ľ. & Sirotkova, A. V. (2019). Evaluation of Selected Issues of Business Environment by Family Business Entrepreneurs. Economic Review, 48 , 65–79.
Urbaníková, M., Štubňová, M., Papcunová, V. & Hudáková, J. (2020). Analysis of Innovation Activities of Slovak Small and Medium-Sized Family Businesses. Administrative Sciences, 10 (4), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10040080
Vollero, A., Siano, A., & Della Volpe, M. (2019). A Systems Perspective for Conceptualizing Sustainability in Long-lived Family Businesses. Research Proposals on Risk Taking and Innovativeness. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36 (1), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2548
Zhu Z, Lu F. (2020). Family Ownership and Corporate Environmental Responsibility: The Contingent Effect of Venture Capital and Institutional Environment. Journal of Risk and Financial Management , 13 (6). 110. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13060110
Ing. Mária Trúchliková, PhD.
University of Economics in Bratislava
Faculty of Business Management, Department of Business Economy
Dolnozemská cesta 1, 852 35 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
maria.truchlikova@euba.sk