Influência da Cultura Familiar no Gerenciamento de Risco Empresarial em Empresas Brasileiras

Elisane Brandt ^** Corresponding Author

Universidade Federal do Paraná, Departamento de Ciências Sociais, Curitiba, PR, Brazil.

Márcia Zanievicz da Silva

Universidade Regional de Blumenau, Blumenau, SC, Brazil.

Franciele Beck

Universidade Regional de Blumenau, Blumenau, SC, Brazil.

Editor-in-chief:

Wesley Mendes-da-Silva (Fundação Getulio Vargas, EAESP, Brazil)

Reviewers:

Hsia Sheng (Fundação Getulio Vargas, EAESP, Brazil)

One of the reviewers chose not to disclose his/her identity.

Peer Review Report:

The disclosure of the Peer Review Report was not authorized by its reviewers.

Conflict of Interests

The authors have stated that there is no conflict of interest.

Sector	n_i	fi
Industry	35	24.65
Trade	18	12.68
Service	89	62.68
Total	142	100
Average revenues	n_i	fi
Less than or equal to R$ 2.4 million	63	44.37
Greater than R$ 2.4 million and less than or equal to R$ 16 million	29	20.42
Greater than R$ 16 million and less than or equal to R$ 90 million	24	16.90
Greater than R$ 90 million and less than or equal to R$ 300 million	15	10.56
Greater than R$ 300 million	11	7.75
Total	142	100
Number of employees	n_i	fi
Up to 9	56	39.44
From 10 to 49	31	21.83
From 50 to 99	12	8.45
100 or more	43	30.28
Total	142	100

Dimension	Indicator*	Mean	Std. Dev.	Minimum	Maximum
Power	PW01	82.0	29.53	0.00	100.00
	PW02	0.48	2.12	0.00	25.00
	PW03	1.73	0.44	1.00	2.00
Experience	EX02	0.53	0.14	0.00	0.937
	EX03	0.57	0.16	0.00	0.935
	EX04	0.49	0.24	0.00	0.875
Culture	OC01	3.72	1.51	1.00	5.00
	OC02	3.73	1.36	1.00	5.00
	OC03	3.84	1.33	1.00	5.00
	OC04	3.86	1.33	1.00	5.00
	OC05	3.64	1.25	1.00	5.00
	OC06	4.08	1.22	1.00	5.00
	OC07	3.99	1.30	1.00	5.00
	OC08	4.01	1.34	1.00	5.00
	OC09	3.65	1.32	1.00	5.00
	OC10	3.68	1.27	1.00	5.00
	OC11	4.07	1.22	1.00	5.00
	OC12	3.84	1.35	1.00	5.00
	OC13	3.81	1.28	1.00	5.00

Dimension	Indicator*	Mean	Std. Dev.	Min.	Max.
Risk identification	ID01	3.30	1.48	1.00	5.00
	ID02	3.91	1.15	1.00	5.00
	ID03	3.82	1.16	1.00	5.00
	ID04	3.90	1.22	1.00	5.00
	ID05	4.19	0.96	1.00	5.00
	ID06	3.75	1.20	1.00	5.00
	ID07	2.50	1.44	1.00	5.00
	ID08	3.25	1.45	1.00	5.00
	ID09	3.35	1.44	1.00	5.00
	ID10	2.89	1.43	1.00	5.00
	ID11	2.15	1.46	1.00	5.00
	ID12	2.27	1.48	1.00	5.00
Risk evaluation	EV01	3.68	1.17	1.00	5.00
	EV02	2.96	1.42	1.00	5.00
	EV03	2.33	1.38	1.00	5.00
	EV04	2.56	1.39	1.00	5.00
	EV05	3.70	1.31	1.00	5.00
	EV06	2.15	1.36	1.00	5.00
	EV07	2.37	1.44	1.00	5.00
	EV08	2.08	1.33	1.00	5.00
	EV09	2.32	1.40	1.00	5.00
	EV10	2.11	1.37	1.00	5.00
	EV11	2.78	1.51	1.00	5.00
	EV12	2.69	1.47	1.00	5.00
	EV13	2.13	1.36	1.00	5.00
	EV14	1.63	1.07	1.00	5.00
	EV15	1.82	1.19	1.00	5.00
	EV16	2.49	1.53	1.00	5.00
	EV17	3.47	1.38	1.00	5.00
	EV18	2.81	1.54	1.00	5.00
	EV19	2.16	1.49	1.00	5.00
Risk response	RR01	3.49	1.23	1.00	5.00
	RR02	3.89	1.13	1.00	5.00
	RR03	3.65	1.10	1.00	5.00
	RR04	1.83	1.12	1.00	5.00
Risk communication	RC01	4.30	0.97	1.00	5.00
	RC02	3.87	1.32	1.00	5.00
	RC03	3.63	1.27	1.00	5.00
	RC04	3.43	1.30	1.00	5.00

Variables	EV	RC	OC	EX	ID	PW	RR
EV	0.77
RC	0.45	0.86
OC	0.16	0.36	0.85
EX	0.08	0.08	0.26	0.79
ID	0.68	0.58	0.31	0.03	0.73
PW	0.14	0.05	0.13	0.36	0.05	1.00
RR	0.42	0.58	0.49	0.10	0.48	0.08	0.86
Cronbach’s alpha	0.95	0.88	0.97	0.71	0.89	1.00	0.82
Average variance extracted	0.59	0.74	0.73	0.62	0.54	1.00	0.74
Composite reliability	0.96	0.92	0.97	0.83	0.91	1.00	0.89

	Hypothesis	Beta	Standard deviation	Test T	p-value	f2
Power share -> Identification	H1 - There is a negative relationship between the power dimension and risk management practices.	0.133	0.073	1.804	0.072	0.019
Power share -> Evaluation		0.221	0.080	2.744	0.006	0.054
Power share -> Response		0.075	0.079	0.954	0.340	0.007
Power share -> Communication		0.110	0.068	1.635	0.102	0.014

Power management -> Identification		0.111	0.085	1.306	0.192	0.014
Power management -> Evaluation		0.121	0.068	1.786	0.074	0.016
Power management -> Response		0.091	0.074	1.216	0.224	0.011
Power management -> Communication		0.035	0.058	0.593	0.553	0.001
Experience -> Identification	H2 - There is a positive relationship between the experience dimension and enterprise risk management practices.	0.099	0.119	0.831	0.406	0.011
Experience -> Evaluation		0.168	0.148	1.133	0.258	0.031
Experience -> Response		0.129	0.121	1.065	0.287	0.022
Experience -> Communication		0.086	0.098	0.876	0.381	0.008
Culture -> Identification	H3 - There is a positive relationship between the culture dimension and risk management practices.	0.272	0.103	2.653	0.008	0.084
Culture -> Evaluation		0.129	0.078	1.661	0.097	0.019
Culture -> Response		0.469	0.082	5.747	0.000	0.296
Culture -> Communication		0.341	0.088	3.896	0.000	0.135

Brasil