sustainability
Article
COVID 19 and the Business Management Crisis: An Empirical
Study in SMEs
Margarida Rodrigues 1 , Mário Franco 1, * , Nuno Sousa 2






Citation: Rodrigues, M.; Franco, M.;
Sousa, N.; Silva, R. COVID 19 and the
Business Management Crisis: An
Empirical Study in SMEs.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su13115912
Academic Editors: Sajid Anwar and
Samuel Asumadu-Sarkodie
Received: 28 April 2021
Accepted: 19 May 2021
Published: 24 May 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13115912
and Rui Silva 2
1 CEFAGE-UBI Research Center, Department of Management and Economics, Universidade da Beira Interior,
Estrada do Sineiro, 6200-209 Covilhã, Portugal; mmmrodrigues@sapo.pt
2 CETRAD Research Center, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal;
nsousa@utad.pt (N.S.); rui.silva@utad.pt (R.S.)
* Correspondence: mfranco@ubi.pt
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many firms to close, causing an unprecedented
interruption in trade in most sectors of economic activity worldwide. Although global supply
chains have been affected by the general lockdown, due to their particular characteristics, small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have been hit most severely by the measures implemented
to prevent the spread of the virus. This study aims to determine how these firms coped with the
disruption caused by the closure, in terms of population and their daily lives to carry out their
economic activities. For this purpose, a qualitative methodology (descriptive and inductive) was
used through the use of snowball sampling with a questionnaire in Portugal during the lockdown.
The results obtained show that SMEs face a series of difficulties from interrupting their operations,
which has caused serious liquidity problems, with effects on their future continuity and maintaining
jobs. Additionally, it showed the importance of government measures to support these firms today
and in the future, although the number of firms adhering to them is considerably affected by the
eligibility criteria and the speed of institutions’ response. The main contribution of this research
lies in confirming that the weaknesses in SMEs are the principal obstacle to a resilient response to
this crisis, such as their limited liquidity, human resources, digitalization, and use of information
technology. These weaknesses and/or threats had already been indicated in the various theoretical
currents stemming from Organizational Theory, so the originality of this contribution lies in the
fact that the managers of these SMEs are endowed with other skills and characteristics, such as,
for example, dynamic capacities to manage business in an unparalleled crisis and to continue their
operations, even when faced with a global blockage. Implications for theory and practice, limitations,
and suggestions for future research are also presented.
Keywords: COVID-19; business; crisis management; SMEs; uncertainty resilience; survive
1. Introduction
On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced that the world
was facing a pandemic caused by a new coronavirus, called COVID-19, which would
disseminate exponentially. In these circumstances, all countries were urged to implement a
general lockdown in an attempt to slow down its spread [1], and this has been a lengthy
process. Survival depends on how the exit from this crisis will be managed [2], as the
public health crisis will spread to and influence the whole economy, as argued by Baldwin
and Weder [3]. The current pandemic crisis is different from previous crises (e.g., hurri-
canes, the financial crisis of 2008), as those emerged at a specific moment and in certain
places, whereas COVID-19 has developed on a world scale, and controlling it has quickly
damaged economies worldwide [4] and their business activities (national and international
business) [5]. This causal relation between the emergence of a global lockdown and its
economic and sanitary consequences has had a particular effect on micro-, small- and
medium-sized firms, whether family-owned or not [6–10].
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 2 of 20

According to STATISTA, “there were estimated to be approximately 25.1 million SMEs

in the European Union in 2018, with the vast majority of these enterprises micro-sized
firms which only employed fewer than nine people. A further 1.47 million enterprises
were small firms with between 10 and 49 employees and approximately 236 thousand were
medium-sized firms that had 50 to 249 employees” (https://www.statista.com/statistics/
878412/number-of-smes-in-europe-by-size/ (accessed on 12 April 2021). These data show
the importance of studying the impact of this pandemic on businesses, since this business
typology (SMEs, family-owned or not) plays a crucial role in countries’ economies, for
employment and in creating wealth [11]. On the other hand, they are weaker financially and
experience greater uncertainty as the crisis continues regarding its long-term effects [8], and
so surviving this crisis is an unprecedented challenge [10,12]. This means that firms have
to adapt, transform [13], and embrace changes to create value [14], as the only survivors
and winners will be those that adapt better to changing conditions [10]. In this context, it
is necessary to continue to ensure employment and these firms’ viability to avoid serious
economic and social damage [15]. Governments must support firms’ employees and firms
themselves, so that the uncertainty can be managed [16]. The response to the economic and
social crisis that has hit SMEs, caused by COVID-19, depends primarily on governments’
response capacity [17].
This global crisis and its effects on the business sector guides the theoretical frame-
work of this empirical study towards organizational resilience, a perspective adopted in
recent research on business in the pandemic situation [4,12]. Rangachari and Woods [18]
concluded that the literature on organizational resilience includes three key constructs:
“(1) foresight (ability to predict something bad could happen), (2) coping (ability to pre-
vent something bad from becoming worse), and (3) recovery (ability to recover from a
bad occurrence).” This means that organizational resilience is regarded as a process of
overcoming, including recovery, and the development of new capacities that allow the
exploitation of new opportunities in future adversities [19,20]. Consequently, organiza-
tional resilience is defined as organizations’ capacity to form situational responses when
faced with potential threats to their survival, corresponding to the capacity to respond to
disruptions/ruptures [19,21]; this definition was adopted in this research. As this resilience
is a capacity, it can be associated with the theory of dynamic capabilities, which defines
“dynamic capabilities as the firm’s ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and
external competences to address rapidly changing environments” [22]. A firm that faces
this pandemic with organizational resilience can deal dynamically with the business man-
agement crisis (e.g., develop new competences) and has the capacity to adapt to disruptive
environments, surviving in the short and long term.
Despite the extensive literature on this virus in relation to business and management
(e.g., Web of Science returned 9325 articles on 30 October 2020), gaps remain in the topic.
In this connection, De Vito and Gómez [23] studied the effect of the pandemic on quoted
firms, recognizing the urgency of replicating the study with unquoted firms. Based on
the argument that most SMEs are entrepreneurial, Kuckertz et al. [4] also underlined the
shortage of research on entrepreneurship in a crisis environment. Fairlie [24] stated there
was a minimum of evidence of how the restrictions imposed have impacted SMEs. With
SMEs facing a major challenge, more research is needed on how this firm segment is
responding to the COVID-19 crisis [25]. It is therefore important to determine the efficacy
of government measures proposed to ensure firms’ survival during this lockdown [4,26].
Lastly, Ali, Hakak, and Amin [27] have also advocated that it is essential to understand all
the implications of this pandemic from various perspectives. In addition, the same authors
noticed in their study that the business and management area is not in the top ten topics of
research on COVID-19.
Given these gaps, Fabeil et al. [25] state there is a lack of research on pandemics and
their effects on firm management, and so this study aims to perceive how Portuguese SMEs
have faced the disruption caused by the lockdown, how they cope with this unique chal-
lenge, and what the consequences for their business and the importance of governments’
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 3 of 20

immediate measures are. The main contribution of the study lies therefore in confirming
that SMEs are seriously affected by the economic and social crisis caused by the pandemic.
These firms need to strengthen their liquidity flows, human resources, and digital compe-
tences to respond positively to this enormous challenge, even if this requires government
support. In addition, the weak tangible and intangible structures of most SMEs is reflected
in the consequences of this sanitary crisis, where upstream and downstream strategies are
necessary to ensure their continuity in the medium and long term, as drivers of economic
growth, irrespective of the resilience and entrepreneurial spirit characterizing this typology
of business owners.
This introduction is followed by the literature review section on the changes and
consequences of this pandemic in the business and management of SMEs; the next section
presents the methodology and inert procedures, and the results obtained and their discus-
sion are presented in the Results and Discussion sections, which included a descriptive
and content analysis. The contributions, limitations, and a future research agenda are also
presented in the last section. Additionally, Appendix A highlights the questionnaire used
in the study presented here.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Challenge Faced by SMEs in Responding to the Pandemic
The business sector in most economies is formed above all of micro-, small-, and
medium-sized firms, either family-owned or otherwise [6,28,29], and so studies have
emerged targeting this firm sector, due to the effects of mitigation measures on their
business and possible responses. Resilience has been indicated as an attribute to cope
with crises [30], and this argument is corroborated by a study made of 195 family firm
managers [31]. This recent study also showed that when business owners have a strong
tendency towards personal resilience, this has a positive relation with collaborator perfor-
mance [31]. Furthermore, entrepreneurial actions, with the available resources, in SMEs
are essential in times of crisis, as argued by Tsilika et al. [32]. For Liu et al. [30], this
means that resilience and entrepreneurship are interlinked in the response to the current
environment of uncertainty and the pandemic, leading to capitalizing on the opportunities
the crisis may offer; when linked to strategic agility, this represents one of the management
instruments for firms to be successful in responding to the challenges created by the current
sanitary crisis.
Business survival, after a recession, also depends on entrepreneurial capacity regard-
ing the way of reacting to a crisis and managing to make the best of existing opportunities.
SMEs were severely affected by the current crisis, since they are more vulnerable due to
their very characteristics [33].
As SMEs are an important element of the business sector worldwide [28,29], it is
fundamental to understand the risks in these small firms and their resilience in a post-crisis
scenario [6]. These authors argue that accepting risks in these firms is based on economic
and socio-emotional criteria, as their owners assess the financial and non-financial losses,
as in the case of Chile. Previous research [34,35] underlined that entrepreneurial business
owners with contingency actions in a crisis context highlight their innovative capacities,
creating survival mechanisms to mitigate the impact on their business.
In these circumstances, a determined spirit, strength, the development of new dynamic
capacities, and improvements to those qualities already held (e.g., practicing objectivity,
continuing to create value, having passion and perseverance) stimulate business owners in
this crisis, so that they can find new opportunities and continue to be resilient [10]. Indeed,
the uncertainty experienced can be a driver to generate creative, innovative solutions to
overcome this crisis in business and its management [30].
Briefly, the way the economic and social crisis is handled, due to the spread of COVID-
19, can be one of the keys to firms’ continuity in the short and long term, where organiza-
tional resilience and the acquisition of new capacities will stimulate the will to recreate the
way of doing business. If SMEs manage to maintain their organizational resilience, they
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 4 of 20

can embark on a process to overcome this disruption and uncertainty [19,20], meaning it is
urgent to acquire dynamic capacities due to the constant changes in their environment [22].

2.2. Consequences for Sme Business and Management

With the global lockdown, the daily life of people, family firms [7], start-ups [4], and
other firm typologies such as SMEs [26] has suffered drastic and exponential economic
consequences due to this exogenous shock [4,7]. The transformation of people’s daily lives
has included negative changes in the labor market [36] and consumption [37]. Therefore,
SMEs need to face up to a series of challenges, such as satisfying the requirements of
protective sanitary measures, adjusting production to demand, and addressing other
aspects [7].
A pioneering empirical study on the consequences of this pandemic for firms was
carried out by Kraus et al. [7], with the results being obtained from firms based in Germany,
Austria, Italy, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein, through semi-structured interviews (27). The
researchers concluded that family firms showed a decisive and quick response capacity
to the rapid changes occurring in the course of this pandemic, namely by implementing
precautionary measures to lessen contagion and safeguard their business activities for the
future as well as possible. These firms put into practice management measures to maintain
their liquidity, processes, and operations; their form of communication and support of the
process of adaptation and innovation required by the coronavirus could drive a transition
of organizational culture and business models. According to this orientation, start-ups
have also shown the ability to respond well to the crisis, but they need to be integrated in a
wider business ecosystem in order to ensure their survival and rapid growth [4].
All these sudden changes for firms triggered a transition in crisis management by busi-
ness owners (micro-level) to management with government help (macro-level) [4]. How-
ever, these business owners, particularly SME owners, have always faced challenges, adap-
tations, and transformations to remain sustainable in the long term [13,14,38]. Runyan [39]
studied how SMEs react to management crises caused by crises/natural disasters and
concluded that they suffer a highly negative impact, given their vulnerability, dependence
on public support, and the psychological and financial effects on their owners. This means
that business owners have to be resilient to face the consequences of crises [26], as this
organizational capacity will let firms remain sustainable in turbulent environments [12].
However, the level of that capacity depends on intangible factors in business owners and
firms (e.g., culture, leadership), as argued by Ates and Bititci [38]. Individual resilience
must be joined to organizational resilience to transform and adapt the tangible, human, and
intangible resources associated with new strategies [12], i.e., strategic agility as suggested
by Liu et al. [30], to achieve a new dynamic capacity that stimulates such behavior [12].
The imposition of tele-working can also bring consequences for firms if these col-
laborators have not absorbed the commitment they should make to their firm in times
of uncertainty, and this requires an active manager/owner [40]. Analyzing 5800 SMEs,
Bartik et al. [41] considered that the negative impacts of this pandemic are temporary or
permanent closure, which has led to job loss, financial fragility, and uncertainty regarding
how long the pandemic will last.
Briefly, crisis management in business includes recovery of liquidity flows generated
internally by its activity, which implies exercising more efficient financial management to
face enormous exogenous shocks such as COVID-19 [42]. In this new research, the authors
“identify what types of businesses have been increasing their cash holdings in the lead up
to Covid-19 as an indication of what types of SMEs are most at risk if the lockdown extends
for a protracted period of time. We find that only 39% of the businesses were bolstering
their cash balances leading up to Covid-19 which suggests that 61% of businesses are at
risk of running out of cash, including 8.6% that had no retained earnings at all” ([42], p. 1).
The above argument of Cowling et al. [42] underlines the importance of governments
activating measures to support SMEs in the short term; otherwise, many of these firms
will not have sufficient resources to continue operating [43]. Firms’ operations are highly
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 5 of 20

dependent on routine transactions and a small number of clients [44], and their resources
are limited [43]. In this context, many SMEs will face a shortage of resources to respond to
the current crisis [43], and the majority may not survive until the post-disaster phase [45].
Corroborating this argument, Cook and Barret [46] say that the sudden exogenous shock
environment has exhausted firms’ financial resources, leading to more insolvency, less
liquidity, and a growing recourse to government support. Therefore, governments have a
major responsibility to implement measures to support their citizens and businesses [47].
Most governments worldwide have made efforts to introduce support measures for firms
in order to mitigate the impacts of the lockdown imposed by the need to lessen the spread
of COVID-19 [48]. Another study [49] conducted in India on the financial impact on SMEs
caused by this pandemic concluded that more support is emerging from governments
and other economic and non-economic actors to ensure the survival of this typology
of enterprises.

3. Methodology
3.1. Type of Research
The methodology adopted in this study follows a descriptive approach, using quanti-
tative data (using questionnaires) treated posteriori, which is fundamental when the subject
is unknown [50], as in the case here. Descriptive research is a basic method that examines a
situation as it is in its current state, so correlational methods, observational studies, and
research can be used to examine situations [51]. This is descriptive, quantitative survey
research of an unknown situation, but using the qualitative and inductive method. This
choice is in line with previous research (e.g., [52,53], where this type of approach has also
been adopted, i.e., when knowledge about a particular phenomenon is scarce, and the
intention is to categorize information (e.g., [54]).
In other words, at the time of writing this empirical study, there was still a scarcity of
robust empirical studies (e.g., using quantitative methods), so this research followed the
Kraus et al. [7] approach and methodology, due to the particular nature of this unprece-
dented crisis, in which robust scientific knowledge is still being sought. The qualitative
methodology allows participants to respond to how and why a given social phenomenon
occurs, especially when the world is facing an unknown and multifaceted phenomenon
that affects the whole society in general in all areas, so the use of a qualitative methodology
allows us to study these types of phenomena [50]. Additionally, when rapid response
scientific research is emerging, this methodology becomes useful [51], especially when it is
intended to study SMEs operating in turbulent environments, since these create barriers
to the development of their activities, whose responses are uncertain and unknown [52].
In this scenario, Doern [53] argued that the use of qualitative research is indispensable,
which is in line with Buchanan and Denyer [54] and Linnenluecke [55] who advocated
that this type of research has dominated research on crises in the business fabric. Finally,
Kraus et al. [7] considered that the typology of the effects of this crisis is unprecedented,
so using this method allows theory to be extended [56–58]. Given these arguments, the
research presented here followed the qualitative methodology by the use of snowball
sampling using a questionnaire launched on social networks [59].

3.2. Data Collection and Sample

For this study, the data-collecting instrument was a questionnaire launched on social
networks. The snowball sampling technique was used, similarly to previous studies [43],
this being a recent recurring option with new experimental potential [60].
The questionnaire used here was based on two studies made by the North Vancouver
Chamber [61] and the European Chamber of Commerce in Korea (ECCK) [62] on 5 and
19 March 2020, respectively. These collected large samples, which makes their use appro-
priate, albeit with some adaptations to the Portuguese context. Combining them led to
the questionnaire applied to Portuguese SMEs. It includes 24 questions, 23 with closed
answers and 1 with an open answer, taking less than 10 min for participants to complete.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 6 of 20

The questions that were asked cover the following topics: economic activity, number of
employees, firm location, tele-working, impacts on income, government measures, and
others (see Appendix A). All these topics cover aspects related to human resources, the
situation of the firm’s current activity, financial questions, and perceptions about the future.
The open question asks to identify the measures that managers/owners consider crucial to
support the continuity of business, given the negative effects on their operational activities.
Before launching the questionnaire online, a pre-test was carried out on 25 March 2020
to validate the relevance, clarity, and understanding of the questions with a convenience
sample of 10 firms, with their suggestions being incorporated in the final questionnaire.
This was published on social networks on 7 April 2020, with 254 answers being received
by 8 June 2020, representing the final sample of SMEs.
Of the 254 SMEs answering the questionnaire, 161 have 10 or fewer employees (micro-
sized), 65 between 11 and 50 (small-sized) and 28 between 50 and 250 (medium-sized).
Regarding geographical location, Vila Real (31%), Porto (8%), and Braga (7%) represent
47% of all answers, with the other SMEs being scattered over the rest of mainland Portugal.
As for sector of activity, the SMEs in the sample cover all sectors of economic activity, as
shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Sample by sector of activity.

Ecomomic Activity Number of Answers % of Total

Other activities 52 20
Manufacturing industries 46 18
Wholesale and retail 34 13
Agriculture, animal production, hunting,
20 8
forestry and fishing
Construction 18 7
Accommodation, catering and similar 16 6
Transport and storage 16 6
Consultancy and accounting 12 5
Human health and social support activities 12 5
Financial and insurance activities 10 4
Real estate activities 6 2
Engineering 4 2
Events and culture 4 2
Tourism 4 2
Total 254 100
Source: Authors’ calculations.

Of the SMEs, 164 remained open and 90 closed, following the general lockdown in
force in Portugal, in March and April 2020, aiming to reduce contagion of COVID-19.

4. Results and Discussion

Descriptive Analysis
After describing the sample, Figure 1 shows the number of SMEs that needed to
reduce staff due to the restrictions in carrying out their operations.
Sustainability
Sustainability 2021,
2021, 13,
13, x
x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 7
7 of
of 20
20

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912

Descriptive
Descriptive Analysis
Analysis 7 of 20
After
After describing the sample, Figure 1 shows the number of SMEs that needed to
describing the sample, Figure 1 shows the number of SMEs that needed to re-
re-
duce staff due to the restrictions in carrying out their operations.
duce staff due to the restrictions in carrying out their operations.

TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT AND
AND STORAGE
STORAGE 22 44

OTHER SECTORS
OTHER SECTORS 44 22

MANUFACTURING
MANUFACTURING AND
AND OTHER
OTHER INDUSTRIES
INDUSTRIES 44 44 44

CONSULTING
CONSULTING AND
AND ACCOUNTING
ACCOUNTING 22

CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION 44 22

WHOLESALE
WHOLESALE AND
AND RETAIL
RETAIL TRADE
TRADE (...)
(...) 66 44 22

ACCOMMODATION,
ACCOMMODATION, CATERING
CATERING AND
AND SIMILAR
SIMILAR 10
10
AGRICULTURE,
AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL
ANIMAL PRODUCTION,
PRODUCTION,…
… 22 44

HUMAN
HUMAN HEALTH
HEALTH AND
AND SOCIAL
SOCIAL SUPPORT
SUPPORT…
… 33

00 22 44 66 88 10
10 12
12 14
14
0-10
0-10 11-50
11-50 50-250
50-250

Figure
Figure 1. Firms that
1. Firms
Figure 1. that reduced
that reduced staff
reduced staff (n
(n === 63)
staff (n 63) (Source:
(Source: Authors’
Authors’ calculations).
calculations).

Figure
Figure 111 shows
shows that
shows thatof
that ofofthe
the254
the 254SMEs
254 SMEsstudied,
SMEs studied,37
studied, 3737with fewer
with
with fewer
fewer than
than 10
than employees
10 10 employees
employees re-
re-
duced
reducedstaff, and
staff, 20
and with
20 between
with 10
between and
10 50
and employees
50 employeeswere the
wereones
the that
ones made
duced staff, and 20 with between 10 and 50 employees were the ones that made the great-that the
made great-
the
est
est reduction
greatest in
in staff.
reduction
reduction A
A comparison
in staff.
staff. with
A comparison
comparison firms
with with that
that did
firmsfirms thatnot
did didreduce
not staff
not reduce
reduce (191)
staff staff shows
(191)(191)
shows that
shows
that
124
124 micro-firms and 45 small ones (between 10 and 50 employees) did not resort to this
that micro-firms
124 and
micro-firms 45
andsmall
45 ones
small (between
ones 10
(between and
10 50
and employees)
50 did
employees) not
did resort
not to
resort to
this
this mechanism
mechanism
mechanism (Figure
(Figure
(Figure 2). 2).
2).

0-10
0-10 11-50
11-50 50-250
50-250

M
MAAN NU UFFAAC CT TUUR R II N
NG G II NND DU USSTTR R II E
ES S 16
16 12
12 6
6
E V E N T S A N
EVENTS AND CULTURE 2 2 D C U L T U R E 2 2
E
ENNG G II N
NE EEERR II N
NG G 22 22
T
TOOU UR R II S
SMM 4
4
A C C O M M O D A T I O N , C A T E R
A C C O M M O D A T I O N , C A T E R I N G … 44 22I N G …
T
TRRAAN NSSP POOR RT T A AN ND D S STTOORRA AG GE E 4
4 4 4 2 2
R E A L E S T A T
REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES E A C T I V I T I E S 6
6
C
CO ON NS STTR RUUC CTT II O
ON N 6
6 4
4 2
2
H U M A N H E A L T H A N D S
H U M A N H E A L T H A N D S O C I A L … 7 22O C I A L … 7
C
COON
NS SU ULLT
T II N
NGG A ANND D A AC CC CO OU UN NTT II N
NG G 10
10
F I N A N C I A L A
FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE… N D I N S U R A N C E … 10
10
A G R I C U L T
AGRICULTURE, ANIMAL… U R E , A N I M A L … 10
10 4
4
W H O L E S A L
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL… E A N D R E T A I L … 14
14 4
4 4
4
O T H E R S E C T O
OTHER SECTORS OF ACTIVITY R S O F A C T I V I T Y 29
29 13
13 4
4

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Firms
2. Firms that
Firms that did
that did not
did not reduce
not reduce staff
reduce staff (n
(n === 191)
staff (n 191) (Source:
191) (Source: Authors’
(Source: Authors’ calculations).
Authors’ calculations).
calculations).
Figure

Other relevant
Other relevant aspects
aspectsinin
relevant aspects these
inthese firms
thesefirms areare
firms thethe
are the state
state
state of
of mind
of mind mind
duringduring
during the
the general
the generalgeneral
lock-
lockdown
lockdown and motivation
and motivation
down and motivation (Figure
(Figure(Figure 3); 66 business
3); 66 owners
3); 66 business owners
businessareowners are 50%
are 50% 100
50% motivated, motivated,
motivated,
considerably100
100
considerably
considerably motivated,
motivated,
motivated, and 4 extremelyand
and 4 extremely
4 extremely
motivated, motivated,
motivated,
but 84 but
are “littlebut 84 are
84 at
or not are “little
“little
all” or not
or notand
motivated at all”
at feel
all”
quite pessimistic.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 8 of 20

motivated and feel quite pessimistic.

80 66
60
34 36 36
40
16 16 18 16
20 12
4
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 3.
Figure 3. State
State of
of mind
mind and
and motivation
motivation of
of entrepreneurs/managers
entrepreneurs/managers (n
(n == 254).
254). (Source:
(Source: Authors’
Authors’ calculations).
calculations).

It is important to highlight that, even given this disruption and the variable states of
mind and motivation,
motivation,Table
Table2 2reveals
reveals that
that 130130 SMEs
SMEs willwill
notnot dispense
dispense withwith
staffstaff
in theinnext
the
next 3 monthsm
3 monthsm and
and 64 64 have
have notdecided.
not yet yet decided.

Table 2. Reduction of personnel

Table 2. personnel in
in future
future (n
(n == 254).

Expected
Expected Reduction
Reduction of Personnel
of Personnel in the
in the Next Next 3 Months
3 Months
Activities
Activities Yes No No Not Sure We We Cannot
Cannot Reduce
Reduce More
Yes Not Sure
More
Accommodation, catering and similar 4 8 2 2
Accommodation, catering and similar 4 8 2 2
Agriculture, animal production, hunting,
Agriculture,forestry
animalandproduction, 2 14 4
fishing hunting, forestry and 2 14 4
fishing
Construction 4 8 6
Construction 4 8 6
Consulting and accounting 2 8 2
Consulting and accounting 2 8 2
Engineering
Engineering 2 2 2 2
Eventsand cultureculture
Eventsand 2 2 2 2
Financial
Financial and insurance
and insurance activities
activities 2 2 6 6 2 2
Human
Human healthhealth and support
and social social support
activitiesactivities 4 4 4 4 4 4
Manufacturing
Manufacturing andindustries
and other other industries 8 8 26 26 12 12
Other activities
Other activities 16
16 28
28 8
8
Real estate activities 2 4
Real estate activities 2 4
Tourism 4
Tourism 4
Transport and storage 4 6 6
Transport and storage
Wholesale and retail trade 4 10 6 12 6 12
Wholesale and retail
Total trade
responses 10 58 12 130 12 64 2
Total responses Source:58
Authors’ calculations.
130 64 2
Source: Authors’ calculations.
In addition, tele-working was an option to mitigate the economic and social conse-
quences for firms tele-working
In addition, and their collaborators; the data
was an option are shown
to mitigate the in Table 3. and social conse-
economic
quences for firms and their collaborators; the data are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. SMEs’ continued operations during lockdown (n = 254).
The compilation of the various answers in Table 3 also shows the number of workers
who requested sick leave due to not being able to perform their
Lockdown No.function in tele-working
of Workers
No. of
and if the respective firms were open or closed. In addition, in theWhototalAre
number Sick
Activity Not of 254 firms
Open Closed Teleworkers
studied, 1405 employees were tele-working, and 3097 were not, asTeleworking Leave
well as 271 collaborators
on sick leave. However, recourse to tele-working as a mechanism to minimize the lockdown
Accommodation, catering and similar 6 10 14 60 10
for firms was not sufficient for business owners not to feel pessimistic (210 responses
Agriculture, animal production, hunting, forestry and
with a high and medium impact 18 in the
2 total of 25478responses) in all120
sectors of economic
6
fishingactivity; in addition, they experienced concern about the impact on income of preventive
Construction
measures implemented in the 16 first semester
2 of 202066and the adjustment
454 of objectives
0 for
Consulting and accounting
2020 according to that fall, and they experienced uncertainty due to the deep economic2 and
8 4 22 16
Engineering 4 as shown in Figure 4.
social crisis felt in the country, 52 12 0
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 9 of 20

Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Table 3. SMEs’ continued operations during lockdown (n = 254). 9 of 20

Lockdown No. of No. of Workers Who

Activity Sick Leave
Teleworkers Are Not Teleworking
Events and culture Open Closed 4 24 62 0
Accommodation,
Financial catering and
and insurance activities
6 10 8 214 22 60 12 10 0
similar
Human health and social support activities 4 8 79 471 26
Agriculture, animal production,
Manufacturing and other industries 38 1878 444 1806
18 2 120 6 53
hunting, forestry and fishing
Other activities 24 18 363 271 134
Construction
Real estate activities 16 2 666 14 454 4 0 0
Consulting and accounting
Tourism 8 4 422 0 16 12 2 12
Transport and storage 4
Engineering 14 252 71 12 253 0 0
EventsWholesale
and cultureand retail trade 4 24 1024 156 62 354 0 28
Total
Financial and insurance activities 8 2 164 9022 1405 12 3097 0 271
Source: Authors’ calculations.
Human health and social support
4 8 79 471 26
activities
The compilation of the various answers in Table 3 also shows the number of workers
Manufacturing and other industries 38 18 444 1806 53
who requested sick leave due to not being able to perform their function in tele-working
Other activities 24 18 363 271
and if the respective firms were open or closed. In addition, in the total number of 254 134
Real estate activities firms studied, 1405 employees6 were 14 tele-working, and 30974 were not, as well0 as 271
Tourism collaborators on sick leave.
4 However, 0 recourse to tele-working
12 as a mechanism
12 to
minimize the lockdown for firms was not sufficient for business owners not to feel
Transport and storage 14 2 71 253 0
pessimistic (210 responses with a high and medium impact in the total of 254 responses)
Wholesale and retail trade in all sectors
24of economic 10activity; in addition,
156 they experienced354 concern about the 28impact
Total on income164 of preventive 90 measures implemented
1405 in the first
3097semester of 2020271 and the
adjustment of objectives for 2020 according
Source: Authors’ calculations. to that fall, and they experienced uncertainty
due to the deep economic and social crisis felt in the country, as shown in Figure 4.

Keep the Increase

goal set moderately
Decrease
15% 2%
90% moderately
It's too early 25%
Increase in revenue to have that
1%
1%
1%
1%1%
1% perception
16% 21%
About 15%
17%

Decrease <30%
21%
Decrease > 50%
36%
Decrease between 30% to
50% Decrease
It's too early to have that significantly
perception 41%

Figure 4. Percentage
Figure 4. Percentage by
by type
type of impact (income
of impact (income and
and objectives
objectives defined
defined for
for 2020).
2020). (Source:
(Source: Authors’
Authors’ calculations).
calculations).

As seen,
seen,thetheSMEs
SMEsincluded
included in this
in this studystudy are quite
are quite heterogeneous
heterogeneous regarding
regarding the
the impact
that the that
impact sanitary
the measures taken by the
sanitary measures government
taken will have onwill
by the government theirhave
sales,on
although 36%
their sales,
believe there
although 36%will be a decrease
believe there willof over
be a50%. As forof
decrease maintaining
over 50%.the Asobjectives set for 2020,
for maintaining the
41% of SME managers/owners intend to lower them significantly.
objectives set for 2020, 41% of SME managers/owners intend to lower them significantly.
At the time of of implementing
implementing global lockdown measures in Portugal, the government
adopted a set
adopted set of
ofmeasures
measurestotosoften
softenthethe
severe impact
severe on firms,
impact for example,
on firms, for example,socialsocial
pro-
tections for firm
protections employees,
for firm employees,the COVID-19
the COVID-19 line line
of credit, the line
of credit, the of credit
line for micro-firms
of credit for micro-
in the in
firms tourism sector amounting
the tourism to 60 million
sector amounting to 60€, incentive
million €,systems,
incentive and the moratorium
systems, and the
on fulfillment of tax obligations, among others introduced later [63].
moratorium on fulfillment of tax obligations, among others introduced later [63]. However, access to
these measures involves criteria and indicators that firms must present,
However, access to these measures involves criteria and indicators that firms must such as demon-
strating positive
present, such as equity, not owingpositive
demonstrating tax, andequity,
havingnotorganized
owing accounting.
tax, and havingThe majority
organized of
accounting. The majority of SMEs do not meet all these criteria simultaneously due to
their soft and hard structural vulnerabilities. This is reflected in the responses obtained on
this topic, with the majority of managers/owners not considering recourse to these
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 10 of 20

SMEs do not meet all these criteria simultaneously due to their soft and hard structural
vulnerabilities. This is reflected in the responses obtained on this topic, with the majority
of managers/owners not considering recourse to these measures (n = 212), as they may
not satisfy the eligibility criteria, while 42 will use these resources to help their operations
to continue.
Furthermore, around 72 firms hope to recuperate the losses caused by the pandemic,
showing that they intend to direct their action to a recovery process in the midst of
the uncertainty, as proposed by organizational resilience [19], whereas some business
owners express some difficulty in making decisions (28). This difficulty in the decision-
making process should be faced by business owners as a challenge to overcome, as SME
owners/managers have always faced vulnerability, transformation, and adaptation [13,38].
Finally, Kraus et al. [7] conclude that firms’ response capacity was decisive and quick,
which is demonstrated in the case presented here by the 164 firms that remained open
(Table 3), the 191 that did not reduce staff (Figure 2), and the motivational optimism of
50% of business owners regarding the present and future (Figure 3), and with the effects
on income and objectives defined for 2020 (Figure 4), which led to the closure of only
18 companies in the set of 254 firms.
Regarding the impact of measures to mitigate COVID-19, only 1405 collaborators
(Table 3) moved to tele-working, and in this situation, managers must be able to maintain
collaborators’ commitment to the company, as stated by Bechky [40].
As for the time taken to recover from this crisis, for 72 firms this is three months,
and they may suffer alterations in the future if the pandemic is not controlled, in which
case it will be necessary to call once more on individual and organizational resilience [10]
and dynamic capacities [22] to ensure business survival and contradict the argument of
Cowling et al. ([42], p. 1), for example, by assuming strategic agility, as defended by
Liu et al. [30].
The SMEs analyzed here say they do not have plans to close, but major doubts remain
about what will happen, as at the time of answering the questionnaire, they did not
consider that they had enough information to allow an immediate answer and/or more
drastic decisions such as to close down. These perceptions show the enormous challenge
that these business owners face, and will face. As argued by Liu et al. [30], it depends
on the resilience, entrepreneurship, and strategic agility of each business-person as ways
to increase response capacity, associated with the determined spirit and vision of SME
leaders [10].
In the specific case of Portugal, Table 3 shows that 164 firms remained open and dealt
on a daily basis with this unprecedented crisis. This means they showed individual and
organizational resilience in how they responded to the crisis, as defended by some au-
thors [6,30]. SMEs triggered a series of entrepreneurial actions to survive the pandemic, in-
cluding becoming flexible and assuming risks. In this connection, Cucculelli and Peruzzi [33]
propose that business survival in times of crisis depends on entrepreneurial capacity, but
also on the will to develop new dynamic capacities to find new opportunities [10]. The
majority of firms studied here showed they are accepting this crisis as a challenge to be over-
come. This means that their managers/owners are increasingly transforming threats into
opportunities and re-inventing business, because as several authors point out [13,14,38],
they have always faced challenges, adaptation, and transformation, something shown in
their positive state of mind (Figure 3). Additionally, the fact that only 24% of firms have
reduced staff numbers to attenuate the effects of the lockdown shows the individual and
organizational resilience that characterizes this typology of firms, where this organizational
capacity is crucial to ensure the economic stability of business in an uncertain, turbulent
situation [12,26].
Briefly, the above descriptive analysis reveals that most of the firms studied are
experiencing negative impacts on operations in their economic activity; most did not resort
to tele-working as a mechanism to continue their activity; and the fears and uncertainties
are great, meaning that some firms have reduced staff and predict that more will be
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 11 of 20

dismissed, besides finding difficulties in accessing the government’s lines of financial

support. These effects confirm the drastic impacts of the pandemic on SMEs [4,7], the
fragility of most of these firms due to their structural vulnerability [39], the closure of some
firms, and possible dismissal in an uncertain and changing environment [8].
It is perceived in the SMEs analyzed here that resilience is a concept that is part of the
characteristics of these entrepreneurs in the exercise of their management functions [30,31].
Additionally, a resilient manager conveys security to his or her employees, which motivates
them to increase their individual performance [31]. Moreover, these managers show
a profile and an entrepreneurial spirit that are so important to overcome the adverse
consequences of this unprecedented crisis [32], with the adoption of flexible and agile
strategic actions [30]. This line of thought directs this disruption and uncertainty faced
by SMEs to the importance of their managers to acquire dynamic capabilities to cope
with these current and future disruptive facts, so as not to jeopardize the survival of their
businesses [19,20,22].

5. Content Analysis
For a better understanding of the severe effects on the sample SMEs, MAXQDA
software was used for the open and more descriptive questions to identify the effects of
the general lockdown and restrictive measures to limit the spread of the virus. Table 4
summarizes the terms/codes used for those answers (n = 254). Business owners classi-
fied the consequences for their firms, with eight fundamental concerns being identified
as having short-term effects which could lead to their closure. These business owners
implemented the hygiene measures emanating from the General Health Authority to be
able to re-open their physical premises. However, in the prevailing uncertain climate, they
identified support measures that would be useful for their businesses’ survival in the short
and long term.

Table 4. MAXQDA coding.

Description Number of Occurrences of the Term

Business consequences
Decrease in demand for products/services 40
Uncertainty and inability to make business decisions 28
Liquidity problems 24
Inability to meet deadlines 20
Staff shortages 13
Increased costs with human resources 11
Greater demand for products/services 9
Dismissals 7
Measures taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19
Temporary interruption of production/commercial
69
operations
Tele-working 61
Provision of disinfection and protection equipment 30
Reduced office hours 25
Flexible schedule 14
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 12 of 20

Table 4. Cont.

Description Number of Occurrences of the Term

Estimated recovery time after COVID-19
1–3 months 72
It’s too early to have that perception 45
3–6 months 44
Less than a month 28
+12 months 24
6–9 months 22
9–12 months 13
Closure forecast
It’s too early to have that perception 124
No 110
Yes 18
Providing support to the Government
Food 32
Logistical support 25
Medical equipment 22
Others 19
Financial donations 8
None 8
Services 4
Expected Government Support
Greater financial support 50
Tax reduction 40
Monetary support to resume activity 25
Lay off support to managing partners 11
Support to maintain jobs 10
Help to drain production 4
Financial flow in household budget 4
Investment in national infrastructure 2
Consider 2019 and 2020 together for IRC calculation
2
purposes
Source: Maxqda software.

Analysis of Table 4 reveals that the term dismissals only occurred seven times in the
whole sample, in keeping with the fact that 130 (51%) SMEs answered that they did not
expect to reduce staff in the next three months. Bartik et al. [8] argued that dismissals
are one consequence for firms, although their sample was of American firms, something
that was not corroborated here. The other consequences, uncertainty in decision-making,
liquidity problems, a fall in demand, and others are also indicated by the business owners.
However, these are related to the structural typology of SMEs, with greater financial
fragility and diminished liquidity flows having both a psychological and financial effect on
their owners [26,34,35].
Regarding the consequences of this pandemic for their business, an extremely relevant
concern is related to firms’ liquidity when they are unable to meet short-term commit-
ments, which will be catastrophic for their future survival. The inability to make decisions
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 13 of 20

demonstrates that business owners feel unprotected, confused, and lacking in direction.
This means that in the Portuguese context, these SMEs have some difficulty in responding
positively to these effects, unlike the results of the study by Kraus et al. [7], who highlighted
the rapid response of this type of firm, specifically family ones. Consequently, there may
be more long-term negative effects if these business owners do not recover their internal
liquidity flows, as revealed in the study by [8], and even more drastically, the emergence of
numerous insolvencies, as argued by Cowling et al. ([42], p. 1), concluding that “ . . . 61%
of businesses are at risk of running out of cash . . . .”
Finally, these managers/owners are clearly concerned about obtaining government
support, their hopes being mainly for greater financial support, tax reduction, monetary
support to resume activity, lay off support to managing partners, and support to maintain
jobs. As already mentioned, the government has already implemented some of these
measures, although the eligibility criteria and the relevant institutions’ delay in responding
have caused some lethargy among these SME managers/owners. Recent studies have
revealed the urgency of governments implementing measures to support SMEs [42,43],
which was corroborated in this study, since being unable to continue their operations, SMEs
will face liquidity problems, which may cause insolvency in the short term [43,45].

6. Conclusions
Supported by the methodology used, designed to bring added value to scientific
knowledge on a given research topic [56], this study is a synopsis of the business sector
in Portugal during the general confinement in March and April 2020, which imposed a
lockdown on people and companies.
The results obtained show that most of the SMEs studied are experiencing an unprece-
dented liquidity crisis, with business owners still uncertain as to their future (at the time
of launching the questionnaire). It is important to underline that many of these are small
businesses, family-owned or otherwise, which create relationships between people and the
surrounding community, and in the future. Decisions involve financial and non-financial
issues, making them even more difficult to cultivate. This study revealed the concerns of
Portuguese entrepreneurs, mostly managers/owners of SMEs, and these may be concerns
of these firms in other geographical contexts, despite the different scenarios. Uncertainty is
also present, although many of these entrepreneurs have continued with their economic
activities, adapting their businesses to the demands caused by the pandemic. This study
also shows that through their leaders and collaborators, firms must reconsider their way
of doing business by adopting new strategies associated with efficient management of
their tangible and intangible resources. This means that responding to the challenge of
future business survival involves being increasingly resilient, making the firm resilient
to face the processes of overcoming the current and future consequences of COVID-19
for their liquidity and for their collaborators. However, resilience is not enough. They
must acquire new dynamic capacities, banking on digital tools, tele-working, and social
responsibility. These arguments contribute to accumulating scientific knowledge about
firms and pandemics, which is scarce in the area of business and management. Moreover,
the study corroborates numerous others on SMEs, indicating their vulnerability in terms of
human, physical, and capital resources, their great financial fragility, and simultaneously
the entrepreneurial capacity and determination of their owners.

7. Implications
Regarding practical implications, SME management, during and after a crisis, should
be reconsidered. There is no manual to respond to the effects of a pandemic, but experiences
in the current period (approximately eight months) should guide SME leaders to transform
their formal and informal structures to give them the capacity to respond quickly and
adapt to future confinement and lockdowns. Firms should make increasing use of digital
resources and new forms of selling, as consumption habits have also changed (e.g., chang-
ing priorities, the option for online). They should manage their treasury so that the capital
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 14 of 20

flows generated internally will mean that future falls in income will not create liquidity
problems. However, at present, these hard and soft structural transformations lack financial
support from governments, since these firms’ financial resources are beginning to run out,
leading to serious problems in meeting their financial commitments and retaining jobs. In
addition, the potential wealth created will not be sufficient for the necessary responsive
capacity to change. In this scenario, where the capacity to respond to this unprecedented
sanitary, economic, and social crisis should be upstream and downstream, it is crucial for
governments to introduce measures that really support SMEs financially, as these account
for most businesses worldwide and most of the wealth and employment created. Addition-
ally, it is fundamental that these firms transition to digitalization, information technology,
and dynamic competences, as current business models will undergo major transformations
in the future, so that similar crises do not create this type of economic and social disruption.

8. Limitations and Future Avenues

As with any study, this one is not without limitations. The use of snowball sampling is
a limitation, and so it is suggested that future studies should include interviews with some
business owners for greater validity of the results presented here. Another limitation is the
date of issuing the questionnaire (total lockdown), which does not allow managers/owners’
perceptions of the post-pandemic scenario, and this gives suggestions for future study. A
final limitation is related to the geographical context of this study, which was limited to
Portuguese SMEs, justified by the typology of the social networks used (e.g., Facebook),
which translates into its degree of external validity; however, this degree was circumvented
by the use of content analysis of the results obtained, which enabled the characterization
of the social phenomenon under analysis. We suggest that, in the future, similar studies
should cover more geographical contexts to obtain a high external validity, since the issue
of internal validity of this study presented here does not arise (254 answers). Still, on
the measures implemented by the governments, it would be interesting to measure their
impact on public accounts, specifically on public debt, which suggests another future track
that is different from the one presented here.
We also suggest a study on the effectiveness of government measures to support firms
facing the severe effects of this pandemic on their business. It would also be important
to examine the impact of confinement on families, many of them upstream from SMEs,
and the importance of firms and people’s social responsibility in times of uncertainty and
pandemics. Since this is a qualitative study, only the how and why were answered, so
future studies should adopt a quantitative methodology, using multivariate statistical
techniques (e.g., [64,65]).

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, R.S.; Investigation, M.R.; Supervision, M.F.; Writing—
original draft, N.S.; Writing—review & editing, N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was not funded.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees of the journal for their
extremely useful suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. The authors gratefully acknowledge
financial support from the National Funds of the FCT—Portuguese Foundation for Science and
Technology within the project «UIDB/04007/2020» and the project «UIDB/04011/2020».
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A Questionnaire on the Impact of COVID-19 on Portuguese Firms

*Obligatory
Current state of the firm
 o
o 36
o
o 14
o 7
o
o 25
o 8
o
o 36
o
o 94
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 o
o 710 15 of 20
o 5
9. o In the8 next 3 months, do you envisage a reduction in the number of collaborators?
o
o 69
*
o
o 710
1.o What
Yes is the current operational state of your business? *
9. o In the8 next 3 months, do you envisage a reduction in the number of collaborators?
o #
o No 9 Open
*
o
o #
I 10am Closed
not sure
o
o Yes
Other:
9. In the Human next 3 resources
months, do you envisage a reduction in the number of collaborators?
o What
2. No is the average number of collaborators? *
*
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FORFinancial Iquestions
PEERoREVIEW am not sure 15 of 20
o #
10. Indicate
Yes the 10impact
or fewer employees
COVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your busi-
o Other:
ness?#
o No * Between 11 and 50 employees
Financial
o #
IHigh questions
am not Between
sure 50 and 250 employees
o impact
10. 3.Indicate
4.
o Has If the
Yes, impact
how
the number COVID-19
many andcurrently?
are there preventive measures will have on your busi-
o Other:
Medium impactof collaborators changed due to COVID-19? *
ness? * HowYes
o 5. #
Financial Low many collaborators are in tele-working? *
impact
questions
o
o #High
No impact impact
No
10. Indicate the impact COVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your busi-
4.o
o Medium
If
It Yes,
is toohow impact
earlymany are there
to have that currently?
perception
ness?
6. * How many collaborators cannot work in tele-working? *
5.o
o Low
How
Other: impact
many collaborators are in tele-working? *
o
o High
No impact impact
o
o Medium
It is too early impact to have that perception
12. 6.To
o 7.
what
Low
How How many
extent
impact
many willcollaborators
COVID-19
collaborators arethe
and
cannot on sick
inleave
preventive
work due to COVID-19?
measures
tele-working? *
* have impacts on your
o Other:
firm’s
o No income
impactin the first semester of 2020? *
o 8. It
o Reduction is
Ontoo early
a scale ofto1have
<30% to 10,that
howperception
do you assess your state of motivation today? On a
12. 7.To
o what
How
Other: extent
many will COVID-19
collaborators and
are on the
sickpreventive
leave due to measures
COVID-19?have* impacts on your
o Reduction scale of 1ofto30 10,towith
50%1–not at all motivated, 5 motivated, 10 extremely motivated *
firm’s
o income in the first semester of 2020? *
o Reduction o 1 >50%
o
o Reduction
Increased <30%
income
12. 8.To what
Onoaextent 2 of
scale will
1 toCOVID-19
10, how doand youthe preventive
assess measures
your state have impacts
of motivation on ayour
today? On scale of
o
o 1IttoReduction is too3with
earlyof 30 to
tofirst
have 50%that perception
firm’s income
o 10, in 1–not
the semester
at all of 2020?
motivated, *
5 motivated, 10 extremely motivated *
o
o Reduction
Other: >50%
o 14 <30%
o #
o Reduction
Increased income
o #Reduction o 25 of 30 to 50%
o It is too early to have that perception
o #Reduction o 36 >50%
13. Does
o Other: your firm have permanent lines of credit to help overcome the problems
o #Increased o 47 income
caused by COVID-19? *
o #It is o too58 early to have that perception
o #
13. Does Other: o firm
your 69 have permanent lines of credit to help overcome the problems
#
causedoby COVID-19?
o 710 *
#
9. In the 8 next 3 months, do you envisage a reduction in the number of collaborators?
13. Does#your * firm 9 have permanent lines of credit to help overcome the problems
#
caused by COVID-19? 10 *
o Yes
9. In the next 3 months, do you envisage a reduction in the number of collaborators? *
o No
# o Yes I am not sure
# No
o Other:
# I am not sure
Financial
# questions
Other:
10.Financial Indicatequestions
the impact COVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your busi-
ness? *
10. Indicate the impact COVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your business? *
# o High impact
High impact
# o Medium impact
Medium impact
# o Low impact
Low impact
# o No
No impact
impact
# o It
It is
istoo
tooearly
earlytotohave
havethat
thatperception
perception
# o Other:
Other:
o
#
12. To what extent will COVID-19 and the preventive measures have impacts on your
11. To what extent will COVID-19 and the preventive measures have impacts on your
firm’s
firm’s income
income in the
in the firstfirst semester
semester of 2020?
of 2020? * *
Reduction<30%
# o Reduction <30%
Reductionof
# o Reduction of30
30toto50%
50%
o Reduction >50%
o Increased income
o It is too early to have that perception
o Other:
o
 o I am not sure
o 2
o Other:
o 3
Financial
o 4questions
10. Indicate
o 5 the impact COVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your busi-
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 ness? 16 of 20
o 6*
o High
7 impact
o Medium
8 impact
# o Reduction
Low
9 impact >50%
# o Increased
10 impactincome
No
9. # o It
In the is
istoo
It next too3early
early totohave
months, havethat
do you perception
that perception
envisage a reduction in the number of collaborators?
#
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW *o Other:
Other: 16 of 20
o
#o Yes
No extent will COVID-19 and the preventive measures have impacts on your
o what
12. To
12. Does your firm have permanent lines of credit to help overcome the problems caused
oo Yes
I am
firm’s incomenot sure
by COVID-19? * in the first semester of 2020? *
o o NoOther:
# o YesReduction <30%
14.Financial
Will
# o you adjust the
Reduction
questions
No ofgoal
30 toof50%
commercial performance for your firm in 2020? *
10.
13. Willo
o you Reduction
Indicate
Reduce the
adjust >50%
impact
significantly COVID-19
the goal of commercialand preventive
performancemeasures
for yourwill
firmhave on your
in 2020? * busi-
o ness?
o Increased
*
Reduce income
# Reducemoderately
significantly
o o It is too
Maintain
High early
the
impact goalto have that perception
# o Reduce moderately
# o Other:
o o Increase
Medium
Maintain moderately
impact
the goal
oo
# o Increase
Low impact
Increase significantly
moderately
o o It Increase
is too early to have that perception
13.# Does Noyour impact significantly
firm have permanent lines of credit to help overcome the problems
# It
o o Other:
It is
is too
too early
early totohave
havethat perception
caused by COVID-19? * that perception
#
o o Other:
Other:
o
15. #Did your firm face measures from local authorities that decelerated or hindered
12.commercial
To what extent operations? *
will COVID-19 and the preventive measures have impacts on your
14. Did your firm face measures from local authorities that decelerated or hindered
o firm’s
Yes income
commercial in the first
operations? * semester of 2020? *
o o No
# Reduction <30%
Yes
16. # o Reduction
No
If answering of 30 to 50%
yes, indicate which ones.
o Reduction >50%
15. If answering yes, indicate which ones.
o Increased income
o It is too early to have that perception
o Other:
o

13. Does your firm have permanent lines of credit to help overcome the problems
16. caused
17. Specify
Specifyhowbyyour
how COVID-19?
yourbusiness*inin
business Portugal
Portugal hashas been
been affected
affected by COVID-19
by COVID-19 so (Choose
so far. far.
all applicable
(Choose options) *options) *
all applicable
 Diminisheddemand
Diminished demandfor forproducts/services
products/services
 Greaterdemand
Greater demandfor forproducts/services
products/services
 Inability to meet contracted deadlines due
Inability to meet contracted deadlines due to
to interruptions
interruptions in
in logistics
logistics
 Increased costs of human resources
Increased costs of human resources
 Uncertainty and inability to make business decisions
 Uncertainty and inability to make business decisions
 Investment
 Investment
 Liquidity problems
 Liquidity
Shortageproblems
of staffs
 Shortage
Dismissalsstaffs
of
 Dismissals
Other:
 Other:
Current activity
17. Doesactivity
Current your firm continue to provide the following items to support the efforts of the
18. Portuguese government
Does your firm continuetotocontain
provideCOVID-19? Select
the following all that
items apply * the efforts of
to support
the
# Portuguese
Food government to contain COVID-19? Select all that apply *
#
o Prepared meals
Food
#
o Medical meals
Prepared equipment
# Financial donations
o Medical equipment
# Logistic support
o Financial donations
# Other items
o Logistic support
o Other items
o Other:
o

19. What measures is your firm currently implementing to prevent the spread of
 10. o 3 the impact COVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your busi-
5. Indicate
How many collaborators are in tele-working? *
ness?4*
o
o 5
o High impact
6. o o 6many collaborators cannot work in tele-working? *
HowMedium impact
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 o 7 17 of 20
o Low impact
o 8
7. o HowNo
o
impact
9many collaborators are on sick leave due to COVID-19? *
o It is too early to have that perception
#o 10
o Other:
Other:
9.
8. o In the
On a scalenext of 3 months,
1 to 10, how do you envisage
do you assessa your
reduction
state in
of the number today?
motivation of collaborators?
On a
*
# scale of 1 to 10, with 1–not at all motivated, 5 motivated, 10 extremely motivated *
12. To what
Yes extent will COVID-19 and the preventive measures have impacts on your
18. What o measures
o 1 is your firm currently implementing to prevent the spread of COVID-19? *
firm’s
o No income in the first semester of 2020? *
# o Tele-working
2
#o IReduction
3 am not office
o Reduced <30%
sure hours
o Reduction
Other:
# o Reduced
4 of 30 to 50%
production/reduced commercial operations
# o
o Reduction
Temporary
5questions >50%
interruption of production/interruption of commercial operations
Financial
#o o Increased
Restricted income
international travel
6 the impact COVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your busi-
10. Indicate
# o Restricted
It is too early domestic
to havetravel
that perception
ness?7*
o
# o Reduce/restrict
Other: face-to-face meetings (i.e., events, conferences, meetings)
o
o 8
High impact
# Flexible timetable
o 9
Medium impact
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW# o Disinfection of public areas 16 of 20
o
13.# Does 10
your
Low impact
o Providing firm havedisinfectant
hand permanent to lines of creditworking
employees to help overcome
in offices the problems
9. # oIn the
caused
Use
No next
by 3 months, do
ofCOVID-19?
masks
impact * you envisage a reduction in the number of collaborators?
*
# o Use It is of toogloves
early to have that perception
o Yes
# o Other:Yes
Other:
o No
o No
14. #Will
o you I amadjust the goal of commercial performance for your firm in 2020? *
not sure
12. To what extent will COVID-19 and the preventive measures have impacts on your
Future
oo Other:significantly
Reduce
19. If firm’s
COVID-19 income ended in the firsthow
today, semester
long doof you
2020? * your firm would need to recover
think
o
FinancialReduce
questions moderately
from
o the Reduction
outbreak?<30% *
Maintain
10.o Indicate the the
impactgoalCOVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your busi-
# o Less Reductionthan 1 of 30 to 50%
month
Increase
o ness? * moderately
# o 1–3 Reduction
months >50%
o Increase significantly
# o 3–6 High
Increased impact
months income
o It is too early to have that perception
# o Medium
6–9
It ismonths impact
too early to have that perception
o Other:
#
o o Low
9–12
Other: impact
months
# o +12 months
No impact
15. #Did It
o your It is too
tooearly
isfirm face totohave
earlymeasureshavethat perception
from
that local authorities that decelerated or hindered
perception
13.# Does
o your
Other:
commercialOther: firm have
operations? permanent
* lines of credit to help overcome the problems
caused by COVID-19? *
o o Yes
#
12.o ToNo what extent will COVID-19 and the preventive measures have impacts on your
20. What type of support measures would you like the Portuguese government to intro-
16. ducefirm’s
If answering income
for your yes,
firm inindicate
theparticular?
in firstwhich
semester of 2020?
ones.
Please mention* specific matters that we can draw
Reduction attention
theogovernment’s <30% to.
o Reduction of 30 to 50%
o Reduction >50%
o Increased income
o It is too early to have that perception
o Other:
o
17. Will
21. Specify
yourhowfirmyour business
be unable in Portugal
to cope with thehas been affected
problems and endbyup
COVID-19
closing? *so far.
(Choose
13.# DoesYes all applicable options) *
your firm have permanent lines of credit to help overcome the problems
# No by COVID-19?
 caused
Diminished demand* for products/services
# It is too early
Greater demand to for
have that perception
products/services
# Other:
Inability to meet contracted deadlines due to interruptions in logistics
Firm
 location costs of human resources
Increased
22. In
 what local authority
Uncertainty is your firm
and inability located?
to make *
business decisions
23. Specify
 your firm’s
Investment main sector of activity. *
#
 Agriculture,
Liquidity animal production, hunting, forestry and fishing
problems
#
 Mining industry
Shortage of staffs
#
 Manufacturing industry
Dismissals
#
 Electricity, gas and water
Other:
Current activity
18. Does your firm continue to provide the following items to support the efforts of
the Portuguese government to contain COVID-19? Select all that apply *
o Food
 o 10
9. In the next 3 months, do you envisage a reduction in the number of collaborators?
*
o Yes
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 18 of 20
o No
o I am not sure
o Other:
# Construction
Financial questions
# Wholesale and retail (...)
10. Indicate the impact COVID-19 and preventive measures will have on your busi-
# Transport and storage
ness? *
# Accommodation, catering and similar
High impact
# o Financial and insurance activity
# o Real estateimpact
Medium activity
# o Education
Low impact
# o Human
No impact health and social support activities
# o Other sectors
It is too early to have that perception
# o Other:
Other:
o
#
12. To what extent will COVID-19 and the preventive measures have impacts on your
Submit
firm’s income in the first semester of 2020? *
References o Reduction <30%
1. o Reduction of(accessed
WHO. Available online: https://covid19.who.int/info/ 30 to 50%on 21 May 2021).
2. Pacces, A.M.; Weimer, M. From Diversity
o >50% A European Approach to COVID19. SSRN Electron. J. 2020, 11,
to Coordination:
Reduction
283–296. [CrossRef] o Increased income
3. Baldwin, R.; Weder, B. Economics in the Time of COVID-19; VOX: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
o It is too early to have that perception
4. Kuckertz, A.; Brandle, L.; Gaudig, A.; Hinderer, S.; Reyes, C.A.M.; Prochotta, A.; Steinbrink, K.M.; Berger, E.S.C. Startups in times
o
of crisis–A rapid response to the COVID-19 Other:
pandemic. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2020, 13. [CrossRef]
5.
o
Maliszewska, M.; Mattoo, A.; Van Der Mensbrugghe, D. The Potential Impact of COVID-19 on GDP and Trade: A Preliminary
Assessment; World Bank Group: Washington, DC, USA, 2020.
6. 13. Does M.;
Llanos-Contreras, O.; Alonso-Dos-Santos, your firm have permanent
Ribeiro-Soriano, lines of credit
D. Entrepreneurship to help overcome
and risk-taking the problems
in a post-disaster scenario.
caused by
Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2020, 16, 221–237. [CrossRef] COVID-19? *
7. Kraus, S.; Clauss, T.; Breier, M.; Gast, J.; Zardini, A.; Tiberius, V. The economics of COVID-19: Initial empirical evidence on how
family firms in five European countries cope with the corona crisis. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2020, 26, 1067–1092. [CrossRef]
8. Bartik, A.W.; Bertrand, M.; Cullen, Z.; Glaeser, E.L.; Luca, M.; Stanton, C. The impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes
and expectations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 17656–17666. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Acs, Z.J. High technology networks in Maryland: A case study. Sci. Public Policy 1990, 17, 5.
10. Liguori, E.W.; Pittz, T.G. Strategies for small business: Surviving and thriving in the era of COVID-19. J. Int. Counc. Small Bus.
2020, 1, 1–5. [CrossRef]
11. Filser, M.; Brem, A.; Gast, J.; Kraus, S.; Calabrò, A. Innovation in family firms: Examining the inventory and mapping the path.
Int. J. Innov. Manag. 2016, 20, 6. [CrossRef]
12. Beech, J.; Devins, N.; Gold, J.; Beech, S. In the family way: An exploration of family business resilience. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2019,
28, 160–182. [CrossRef]
13. Folke, C.; Carpenter, S.R.; Walker, B.; Scheffer, M.; Chapin, T.; Rockstrom, J. Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability
and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 2010, 15, 20. [CrossRef]
14. Moore, S.B.; Manring, S.L. Strategy development in small and medium sized enterprises for sustainability and increased value
creation. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 276–282. [CrossRef]
15. OECD. Supporting People and Companies to Deal with the Covid-19 Virus: Options for an Immediate Employment and Social-Policy
Response; OECD: Paris, France, 2020.
16. Sharma, P.; Leung, T.Y.; Kingshott, R.P.J.; Davcik, N.S.; Cardinali, S. Managing uncertainty during a global pandemic: An
international business perspective. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 188–192. [CrossRef]
17. Baldwin, R.; di Mauro, B.W. Mitigating the COVID Economic Crisis: Act Fast and Do Whatever It Takes; CEPR Press: Washington, DC,
USA, 2020.
18. Rangachari, P.; Woods, J.L. Preserving organizational resilience, patient safety, and staff retention during Covid-19 requires a
holistic consideration of the psychological safety of healthcare workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4267. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
19. Coutu, D.L. How resilience works. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2002, 80, 46. [PubMed]
20. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E.; Lengnick-Hall, M.L. Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human
resource management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2011, 21, 243–255. [CrossRef]
21. Hamel, G.; Valikangas, L. The quest for resilience. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2003, 81, 52–63. [PubMed]
22. Teece, D.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [CrossRef]
23. De Vito, A.; Gomez, J.-P. Estimating the COVID-19 cash crunch: Global evidence and policy. SSRN Electron. J. 2020, 39, 106741.
[CrossRef]
24. Fairlie, R.W. The impact of Covid-19 on small business owners: Evidence of early-stage losses from the April 2020 current
population survey. NBER Work. Pap. Ser. 2020. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 19 of 20

25. Fabeil, N.F.; Pazim, K.H.; Langgat, J. The impact of Covid-19 pandemic crisis on micro-enterprises: Entrepreneurs’ perspective on
business continuity and recovery strategy. J. Econ. Bus. 2020, 3. [CrossRef]
26. 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, 7891. [CrossRef]
27. Ali, A.; Hakak, I.A.; Amin, F. Assessing the Coronavirus research output: A bibliometric analysis. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2020. [CrossRef]
28. Basco, R. Family business and regional development—A theoretical model of regional familiness. J. Fam. Bus. Strat. 2015, 6,
259–271. [CrossRef]
29. Huarng, K.-H. Entrepreneurship for long-term care in sharing economy. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2018, 14, 97–104. [CrossRef]
30. Liu, Y.; Lee, J.M.; Lee, C. The challenges and opportunities of a global health crisis: The management and business implications of
COVID-19 from an Asian perspective. Asian Bus. Manag. 2020, 19, 277–297. [CrossRef]
31. Santoro, G.; Messeni-Petruzzelli, A.; Del Giudice, M. Searching for resilience: The impact of employee-level and entrepreneur-level
resilience on firm performance in small family firms. Small Bus. Econ. 2020. [CrossRef]
32. Tsilika, T.; Kakouris, A.; Apostolopoulos, N.; Dermatis, Z. Entrepreneurial bricolage in the aftermath of a shock. Insights from
Greek SMEs. J. Small Bus. Entrep. 2020, 32, 1–18. [CrossRef]
33. Cucculelli, M.; Peruzzi, V. Post-crisis firm survival, business model changes, and learning: Evidence from the Italian manufactur-
ing industry. Small Bus. Econ. 2018, 54, 459–474. [CrossRef]
34. Cook, J. A six-stage business continuity and disaster recovery planning cycle. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 2015, 80, 23–33.
35. Naidoo, V. Firm survival through a crisis: The influence of market orientation, marketing innovation and business strategy. Ind.
Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 1311–1320. [CrossRef]
36. Bell, D.N.; Blanchflower, D.G. US and UK labour markets before and during the Covid-19 crash. Natl. Inst. Econ. Rev. 2020, 252,
R52–R69. [CrossRef]
37. Stavins, J. Unprepared for financial shocks: Emergency savings and credit card debt. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2021, 39, 59–82.
[CrossRef]
38. Ates, A.; Bititci, U.S. Change process: A key enabler for building resilient SMEs. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2011, 49, 5601–5618. [CrossRef]
39. Runyan, R.C. Small Business in the Face of Crisis: Identifying Barriers to Recovery from a Natural Disaster 1. J. Contingencies
Crisis Manag. 2006, 14, 12–26. [CrossRef]
40. Bechky, B.A. Managing Organizations in a Time of Crisis. Covid-19 and the Abrupt Change in the Nature of Work Lives: Implications for
Identification and Communication; NYU Stern: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 1–4.
41. Bartik, A.; Bertrand, M.; Cullen, Z.; Glaeser, E.L.; Luca, M.; Stanton, C. How are small businesses adjusting to COVID-19? Early
evidence from a survey. SSRN Electron. J. 2020. [CrossRef]
42. Cowling, M.; Brown, R.; Rocha, A. Did you save some cash for a rainy COVID-19 day? The crisis and SMEs. Int. Small Bus. J. Res.
Entrep. 2020, 38, 593–604. [CrossRef]
43. Shafi, M.; Liu, J.; Ren, W. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on micro, small, and medium-sized Enterprises operating in Pakistan.
Res. Glob. 2020, 2, 100018. [CrossRef]
44. Williams, S.; Schaefer, A. Small and medium-sized enterprises and sustainability: Managers’ values and engagement with
environmental and climate change issues. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2013, 22, 173–186. [CrossRef]
45. Samantha, G. The impact of natural disasters on micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs): A case study on 2016 flood
event in Western Sri Lanka. Procedia Eng. 2018, 212, 744–751. [CrossRef]
46. Cook, C.; Barrett, L. How Covid-19 Is Escalating Problem Debt. Available online: https://www.ft.com/content/4062105a-afaf-
4b28-bde6-ba71d5767ec0 (accessed on 3 June 2020).
47. Mogaji, E. Financial Vulnerability During a Pandemic: Insights for Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). SSRN Electron. J. 2020.
[CrossRef]
48. Danielli, S.; Patria, R.; Donnelly, P.; Ashrafian, H.; Darzi, A. Economic interventions to ameliorate the impact of COVID-19 on the
economy and health: An international comparison. J. Public Health 2020, 43, 42–46. [CrossRef]
49. Sahoo, P.; Ashwani. COVID-19 and Indian economy: Impact on growth, manufacturing, trade and MSME sector. Glob. Bus. Rev.
2020, 21, 1159–1183. [CrossRef]
50. Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods–Applied Social Research Methods Series, 6th ed.; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand
Oaks, CA, USA, 2015.
51. Finlay, I.; Sheridan, M.; Coburn, A.; Soltysek, R. Rapid response research: Using creative arts methods to research the lives of
disengaged young people. Res. Post-Compuls. Educ. 2013, 18, 127–142. [CrossRef]
52. Dana, L.P.; Dana, T.E. Expanding the scope of methodologies used in entrepreneurship research. Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 2005,
2, 79. [CrossRef]
53. Doern, R. Investigating barriers to SME growth and development in transition environments: A critique and suggestions for
developing the methodology. Int. Small Bus. J. 2009, 27, 275–305. [CrossRef]
54. Buchanan, D.A.; Denyer, D. Researching Tomorrow’s Crisis: Methodological Innovations and Wider Implications. Int. J. Manag.
Rev. 2012, 15, 205–224. [CrossRef]
55. Linnenluecke, M.K. Resilience in Business and Management Research: A Review of Influential Publications and a Research
Agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2015, 19, 4–30. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021, 13, 5912 20 of 20

56. Bluhm, D.J.; Harman, W.; Lee, T.W.; Mitchell, T.R. Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. J. Manag. Stud.
2011, 48, 1866–1891. [CrossRef]
57. Brand, M.; Tiberius, V.; Bican, P.M.; Brem, A. Agility as an innovation driver: Towards an agile front end of innovation framework.
Rev. Manag. Sci. 2021, 15, 157–187. [CrossRef]
58. Graebner, M.E.; Martin, J.A.; Roundy, P.T. Qualitative data: Cooking without a recipe. Strateg. Organ. 2012, 10, 276–284. [CrossRef]
59. Bacon-Shone, J. Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods: A Gude for Research Postgraduate Students at the University of Hong
Kong; University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong, China, 2015.
60. Babbie, E.R. The Practice of Social Research, 13th ed.; Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA, USA, 2013.
61. North Vancouver Chamber. COVID-19 Business Impact Survey. 2020. Available online: Visioncritical.com (accessed on 21
May 2021).
62. European Chamber of Commerce in Korea (ECCK). Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on European Companies in Korea; European
Chamber of Commerce in Korea: Seoul, Korea, 2020.
63. Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira. 2020. Available online: https://info.portaldasfinancas.gov.pt/pt/apoio_contribuinte/
COVID_19/Despachos/Paginas/default.aspx (accessed on 21 May 2021).
64. Zandi, G.; Shahzad, I.; Farrukh, M.; Kot, S. Supporting Role of Society and Firms to COVID-19 Management among Medical
Practitioners. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 7961. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Moyo, N. Covid-19 pandemic. Pol. J. Manag. Stud. 2020, 22, 323–334.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.