3.

Is there significant difference in the degree of risk exposures among the different
SMEs in the following industry clusters
3.1. marine;
3.2. fruit;
3.3. meat;
3.4. handicrafts;
3.5. lending;
3.6. pawnshops; and
3.7.
rural banks
ANOVA
Sum of Squares
Between Groups
Hazard Based

6

.536

Within Groups

14.763

41

.360

Total

17.982

47

4.387

6

.731

Within Groups

27.691

41

.675

Total

32.078

47

4.318

6

.720

Within Groups

37.688

41

.919

Total

42.006

47

8.192

6

1.365

Within Groups

29.810

41

.727

Total

38.002

47

Between Groups
Financial

Between Groups
Operational

Mean Square

3.219

Between Groups
Strategic

df

Sig.

F
1.490

.206

1.083

.389

.783

.588

1.878

.108

Using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), results showed that there is no significant difference in
the degree of risk exposures among the different SMEs (Significance>0.05). These results
suggest the SMEs have more or less the same level of risk exposures. If ever there is difference
in their exposures to risks then that difference is not significant.

881 47 Between Groups HUMAN RESOURCE MNGT Within Groups Between Groups FINANCIAL MNGT CLIENT-CUSTOMER RELATIONSHIP Between Groups Between Groups QUALITY ASSURANCE Mean Square Between Groups Between Groups COMPLIANCE df Sig.05).819 47 4.318 47 2.145 41 .781 Total 36.296 .250 .948 .554 Within Groups 41.611 Total 36.514 The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results showed that there is significant difference to the extent to which these risks are managed by the different SME industry clusters but only in the category of Business Planning (sig=0.188 41 .782 Within Groups 36.917 6 1.774 .5)) while the rest of the categories have no significant differences (sig>0.012 41 .886 .520 6 1. This test was done using Least Square Difference (LSD).299 41 .321 6 .5.856 Within Groups 33.986 Within Groups 25.879 6 .517 Total 24.480 21. These results suggest the SMEs differ significantly on risk management practices when it comes to Business Planning.214 41 .280 47 8.812 Total 41.453 47 4.748 . Is there significant difference in the extent to which these risks are managed by the different SME industry clusters? ANOVA Sum of Squares BUSINESS PLANNING OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY 11.442 6 . Test was conducted further to see where the difference lies in the category of BUSINESS PLANNING between groups of industry clusters.053 1.134 .024 Total 45. F 3.976 47 3.093 47 Between Groups 11.134 6 1.059 41 .883 Total 40.996 41 1.010 which is less than 0.540 .927 .420 Within Groups 33.486 2.692 6 .740 Within Groups 32.808 Total 44. .472 .010 .

0081 1.6384 -.74653 .2815 1.43008 .43008 .87500 .166 -.08375 .002 .58500 .0061 3.4583 .58375 .819 -.46980 .79000 .1639 -.07304 .002 -2.67705 .67349 .1116 Marine 1.206 -2.71000 .4544 Handicrafts -.300 -.46474 -1.4583 Pawnshops -. (I-J) .12026 .55281 .32950 .1573 1.2423 Meat -.1573 .61115 .5658 .1870 Handicrafts .5773 Marine .837 -1.58118 .08375 .010 -2.58118 .5773 2.016 -2.3035 2.208 -.53778 .001 1.178 -1.67705 .3035 * -2.3836 2.7119 . Error Sig.016 .0207 * -1.178 -.047 .4569 2.7788 -.47875 .6573 Lending -.47875 .0506 Fruit .6169 -.0773 Lending .37500* .79375 .7423 Meat .250 -.58974 .67349* .0077 .6164 Marine Meat Handicrafts Lending Pawnshops Rural Banks Marine Fruit Handicrafts Rural Banks Marine Lending Rural Banks Marine Pawnshops Rural Banks Rural Banks Upper Bound .047 -1.53778 .862 -1.LSD Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: BUSINESS PLANNING (I) IIndustry Clusters (J) IIndustry Clusters Mean Difference Std.016 -2.79000 .3389 Fruit * 1.43008 .0394 .67705 .67705 .04722 .67705 .0394 Meat -.300 -2.2815 Rural Banks -.1639 Handicrafts .203 -.4923 * .67705 .939 -1.31635 .4569 * -1.78179 .58974 .2788 Pawnshops -.4923 2.049 .6384 Meat -.47875 .46980 .2940 Pawnshops .8831 1.2423 .6164 -.78179 .2940 1.6169 2.208 -2.4544 2.5658 * -.37988 .46474 .31635 .5506 Fruit 2.040 -1.58375* .37988 .61115 .837 -1.37500 .66278 .0773 .50000 .79375 .61806 .55281 .2860 1.0506 .206 -.819 -.7720 Meat -.0081 Pawnshops -.0417 .6573 2.0534 1.83722 .939 -1.07304 .32950 .862 -.6116 .3389 -.5506 -.50000* .58118 .66278 .0419 .3836 .74653 .04722 .67705 .87500 .6116 Lending .79125 .5137 .2910 * .7423 -1.0534 Handicrafts .61115 .61806 .001 -3.61806 .12026 .0419 * 1.016 .049 -3.79125 Rural Banks Meat Lower Bound Fruit Marine Fruit 95% Confidence Interval Handicrafts -1.056 -.61806 .7720 -.58500 .58118 .2860 * -1.056 -1.1870 1.67705 .71000 .2910 2.2788 1.61115 .7860 .0061 -.5137 Fruit * 1.8831 Lending * -.46980 .0077 3.7119 -.91026 .166 -1.203 -2.082 -1.250 -2.010 .47875 .0207 1.

Is there significant relationship between the degree of risk exposures and the extent of risk management practices of SMEs? Correlations Risk Exposures RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Pearson Correlation Risk Exposures Sig.91026* .1116 1. Results of Correlation showed that there is moderate positive correlation with r=0.082 -. . The mean difference is significant at the 0. Correlation is significant at the 0. (2-tailed) N .Lending .009 48 48 **.7788 Pawnshops . (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1 Sig.375 . between risk exposures and the extent of risk management practices of SMEs.05 level. f.01 level (2-tailed). d.375. This positive correlation suggests that SMEs with high level of risk of exposures have the tendency to be high on level when it comes to risk management practices.040 . Marine and Lending Marine and Rural Banks Fruit and Meat Fruit and Lending Fruit and Pawnshops Fruit and Rural Banks Handicrafts and Rural Banks 6.375 ** . c.7860 *.43008 .009 48 48 ** 1 .0417 1. LSD test results showed that in the area of Business Planning. there is significant difference between : a. g. b.83722 . e.46980 .