Business efficiency: Insights from Visegrad Four before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic

Durana, Pavol; Kovalova, Erika; Blazek, Roman; Bicanovska, Klaudia Article Business efficiency: Insights from Visegrad Four before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic Economies Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Durana, Pavol; Kovalova, Erika; Blazek, Roman; Bicanovska, Klaudia (2025) : Business efficiency: Insights from Visegrad Four before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic, Economies, ISSN 2227-7099, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 13, Iss. 2, pp. 1-36, https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13020026 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/329306 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Academic Editor: Angeliki N. Menegaki Received: 13 December 2024 Revised: 12 January 2025 Accepted: 16 January 2025 Published: 22 January 2025 Citation: Durana, P., Kovalova, E., Blazek, R., & Bicanovska, K. (2025). Business Efficiency: Insights from Visegrad Four Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic. Economies,13(2), 26. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/economies13020026 Copyright: © 2025 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/). Article Business Efficiency: Insights from Visegrad Four Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic Pavol Durana 1,* , Erika Kovalova 1, Roman Blazek 1and Klaudia Bicanovska 2 1 Department of Economics, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Zilina, Univerzitna 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia; [email protected] (E.K.); [email protected] (R.B.) 2Sungwoo Hitech Slovakia s.r.o., Cestarska 1, 010 01 Zilina, Slovakia *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Efficiency is one of the tenets in assessing the financial health of an enterprise. Ultimately, the form of asset management has a major impact on growth but also on the decline of profit. It also reveals how the enterprises are positioned within the competitive market environment. For this reason, the aim of this article is to define the level of business activity in the Visegrad Four in the pre-crisis, during-crisis and post-crisis periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. The investigation included 48,650 enterprises from Slovakia, Czechia, Poland, and Hungary over the period 2017–2023. We determined the median values of eleven business efficiency indicators separately for each country and sector. The Friedman test and Kruskal–Wallis test confirmed significant differences between years and countries. Furthermore, multiple pairwise comparisons revealed analogies between the pre-crisis and post-crisis periods, as well as similarities between the two pandemic years for the tested ratios. One can observe that the results serve as the foundation for regional and international benchmarks, particularly for enterprises from former Eastern Bloc countries. Keywords: activity ratios; assets; COVID-19; efficiency; Visegrad Four 1. Introduction Changes in the global market have posed critical challenges for industrial and services industries (Capestro et al.,2024). Especially, the COVID-19 pandemic, which started in the first quarter of 2020, triggered unprecedented economic challenges, prompting governments worldwide to implement intervention measures to mitigate its impacts on business and employment (Svabova et al.,2024). During negative pandemic years, 2020 and 2021, several companies have come to believe in the importance of continuous analysis of the financial situation (Atayah et al.,2022;Derco,2022). Business continuity and sustainability of business operations, especially for managing any turbulent situation like the COVID-19 pandemic, are necessary (Chatterjee et al.,2024). Identification of threats and business weaknesses, but also preparation for unexpected and crisis situations (Lukac et al.,2022), were the most important areas of interest for the company’s management (Gajdosikova et al.,2022;Adamowicz,2022). Despite the partial improvement in the situation, global stabilization has not yet taken place. The ongoing energy crisis also corresponds to the current development (Harantova et al.,2022). Particularly, considering the mentioned rationale, it is crucial to persist in monitoring the financial well-being of the company through the use of appropriate tools (Bartos et al.,2022). Effective monitoring of financial health is essential in the financial management of enterprises (Valaskova et al.,2023a). Financial managers must implement a mechanism for analysing the financial situation that Economies 2025,13, 26 https://doi.org/10.3390/economies13020026 Economies 2025,13, 26 2 of 36 will effectively respond to all stimuli threatening the very existence of the company and its further operation in the market (Mijoc,2024;Bizjak et al.,2024). One of the most important steps in financial analysis, apart from the preparation of financial statements and the collection of data from around the company (Chambost & Praquin,2021), is the process of choosing an appropriate method (Michalkova et al.,2022). Businesses use various procedures and techniques that bring relevant results. Currently, various statistical analysis methods are gaining prominence, while, at the same time, “traditional” methods like ratio analysis continue to receive constant application (Kovalchuk & Verhun,2019). The analysis includes several groups of indicators that represent the basic elements of various professional studies, due to their simple applicability in business practice (Gonchar,2016). This paper primarily focuses on one of these indicator groups, revealing the effectiveness of individual property components in the operational process (Goldmann,2020). Activity indicators, together with recommendations resulting from the achieved results, represent an important part of analysing the financial health of the company (Hiadlovsky et al.,2016). Ultimately, the form of asset management has a major impact on growth but also on the decline of profit (Amoa-Gyarteng,2021). It also indicates the position of the company in the environment of market competition (Kristof & Virag,2022). Thus, the aim of this article is to define the level of business activity in the Visegrad Four in the pre-crisis, during-crisis, and post-crisis periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the bibliometric analysis was realised by VOSviewer version 1.6.20 to prove the significance of the solved issue. The method is used to provide quantitative analysis of published documents (Eger & Žižka,2024). This search query was used in Web of Science: “business efficiency” (Topic) or “business activity” (Topic) or “activity ratio” (Topic) and Economics (Web of Science Categories) or Business (Web of Science Categories) or Management (Web of Science Categories) or Business Finance (Web of Science Categories) and Article (Document Types). The targeted issue yielded 1385 related articles. Figure 1represents a bibliometric map of 32 dominant countries involved in this issue (each country published at least 15 articles). This led to the creation of four clusters of cooperating countries within business efficiency. Hungary, as a part of the Visegrad Four, is not included, but Slovakia, Czechia, and Poland are included. The red cluster dominates the map, connecting the USA, China, Australia, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Portugal, South Korea, Switzerland, Finland, Japan, and Russia. The green cluster includes the remaining developed European countries that are historically or economically connected to themselves or with others from the cluster, including England, France, Italy, Spain, Scotland, New Zealand, India, and Pakistan. Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Taiwan represent close Asian cooperation in the yellow cluster. Slovakia, Czechia, and Poland, along with Ukraine, Lithuania, Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, form a blue cluster of post-Soviet cooperation. VOSviewer also created the bibliometric map of keyword occurrence (Figure 2). Each keyword must be marked at least 20 times in used articles. Four clusters were detected. The red cluster concentrates on the overall management and performance of business efficiency, encompassing aspects such as returns, governance, models, risk, and market. The blue one illustrates the financial aspect of business efficiency, encompassing factors such as profitability, financial performance, capital structure, and productivity. Business potential is defined by a yellow cluster that includes strategy, innovation, knowledge, sustainability, technology, etc. The last cluster is the green one that is related to this article and maps business activity through entrepreneurship, the effect of economic growth, foreign direct investments, and crisis periods, as well as COVID-19 consequences. Economies 2025,13, 26 3 of 36 Economies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 40 Figure 1. Bibliometric map of cooperating countries. Own processing. VOSviewer also created the bibliometric map of keyword occurrence (Figure 2). Each keyword must be marked at least 20 times in used articles. Four clusters were detected. The red cluster concentrates on the overall management and performance of business efficiency, encompassing aspects such as returns, governance, models, risk, and market. The blue one illustrates the financial aspect of business efficiency, encompassing factors such as profitability, financial performance, capital structure, and productivity. Business potential is defined by a yellow cluster that includes strategy, innovation, knowledge, sustainability, technology, etc. The last cluster is the green one that is related to this article and maps business activity through entrepreneurship, the effect of economic growth, foreign direct investments, and crisis periods, as well as COVID-19 consequences. Figure 1. Bibliometric map of cooperating countries. Own processing. Economies 2025, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 40 Figure 2. Bibliometric map of co-occurrence of keywords. Own processing. The article is organised as follows: A literature review covers the theoretical background of business efficiency. The paper then proceeds to explain the creation of the sample from V4, calculate activity ratios, and identify the preferred tests. The results illustrate the median values of eleven ratios and test the set hypotheses. The discussion compares the results. The conclusions outline potential focuses for future research and identify the limitations of the current study. 2. Literature review Svabova et al. (2022); Kramolis and Dobes (2020) define seven initial goals, which are as follows: evaluation of the impact of internal and external factors on the existence of the company, assessment of changes in the management of the business entity, sectoral comparison of financial indicators, monitoring of mutual relationships between the analysed indicators, creation of a relevant information source for the needs of managerial decisionmaking, prediction of the future financial situation of the enterprise in various variations, and defining recommendations for planning and management (Rahman & Sharma, 2020). Mirza et al. (2020) consider information available from financial statements to be the primary element of financial analysis. This statement is further supplemented by Pech et al. (2020), who describe the financial statement as a source of information about the business activity of the accounting unit. Sacer et al. (2018); Demirhan and Anwar (2014) state that each financial statement contains specific data. In the case of the profit and loss statement, Figure 2. Bibliometric map of co-occurrence of keywords. Own processing. The article is organised as follows: A literature review covers the theoretical background of business efficiency. The paper then proceeds to explain the creation of the sample from V4, calculate activity ratios, and identify the preferred tests. The results illustrate the median values of eleven ratios and test the set hypotheses. The discussion compares Economies 2025,13, 26 4 of 36 the results. The conclusions outline potential focuses for future research and identify the limitations of the current study. 2. Literature Review Svabova et al. (2022); Kramolis and Dobes (2020) define seven initial goals, which are as follows: evaluation of the impact of internal and external factors on the existence of the company, assessment of changes in the management of the business entity, sectoral comparison of financial indicators, monitoring of mutual relationships between the analysed indicators, creation of a relevant information source for the needs of managerial decisionmaking, prediction of the future financial situation of the enterprise in various variations, and defining recommendations for planning and management (Rahman & Sharma,2020). Mirza et al. (2020) consider information available from financial statements to be the primary element of financial analysis. This statement is further supplemented by Pech et al. (2020), who describe the financial statement as a source of information about the business activity of the accounting unit. Sacer et al. (2018); Demirhan and Anwar (2014) state that each financial statement contains specific data. In the case of the profit and loss statement, it is mainly a display of the achieved performance of the business entity during a defined period. On the other hand, the balance sheet captures the state of the company’s financial situation as of a specified date. Notes are also an important part. The last part of the financial statements is supplementary to the previous statements. It also presents changes in cash flows, which are found in the cash flow statement (Makoji et al.,2021). Welc (2016) and Fitriani (2023) consider the method of ratio analysis, which is based on the quantification of ratios of selected data from accounting statements, to be the main method of assessing the financial health of a company. This method consists of indicators aimed at assessing the profitability, liquidity, indebtedness, activity, and market value of the company (Priya & Sharma,2023). According to Hunjra et al. (2011), ratio indicators are considered important metrics for determining the performance but also the growth of the company. Jones and Godday (2015) further highlight the importance of ratio indicators in investment decision making but also in taking measures to improve the financial performance of the company (Batrancea,2021). Activity indicators monitor the company’s ability to use assets (its assets)—they indicate how efficiently the company uses its individual assets, i.e., whether the company has enough productive assets or not (Hyrslova et al.,2017). It is important for a business to find a reasonable ratio between the assets the business has acquired to achieve its sales and the sales of the business. If the company has high assets compared to sales, it can be said that the company is using its assets economically (Yousaf et al.,2021). If, on the other hand, it has a lack of assets, it prepares itself for the revenues that would arise from potential orders. In other words, the acceleration of asset turnover is a positive trend because it means higher sales for businesses. However, excessive acceleration of turnover can threaten the flow of production and sales (Tian & He,2016). Susellawati et al. (2022) characterise the meaning of the quantification of activity indicators as the ability to define the level of asset efficiency in the operational process. The contribution of selected asset items in the process of revenue generation is also assessed, as is the number of investments in current and non-current assets. To determine the competitiveness of the analysed entity, the activity indicators are also used to compare companies within the respective industries. As individual branches of the national economy are characterised by a different structure of assets and, consequently, turnover, Kovalchuk and Verhun (2019) draw attention to the diversity of the results of activity indicators depending on the characteristics of the branch. Economies 2025,13, 26 5 of 36 For this reason, they consider it important to adequately adapt and improve the applied methods and procedures of financial analysis in view of the specific circumstances of the business activity of the analysed entity (Rep,2021). The authors subsequently state in their article that effective management of corporate assets will be reflected in the growth of turnover indicators but also in the growth of the company’s competitiveness (Belas et al., 2022). According to Mia et al. (2014), among the most used activity indicators that we can include are accounts receivable turnover, asset turnover, and inventory turnover. Information on the collection of receivables from corporate customers can be determined using the receivables turnover indicator. To evaluate the proportionality of assets in relation to sales production, on the other hand, the turnover of total assets is used, which, according to Purwanto and Bina (2016), is considered one of the most important indicators of company evaluation. The last indicator of activity is inventory turnover, which Farooq (2018) perceives as a tool for determining the number of conversions of inventory sales during the year. Zisoudis et al. (2020) claim that a high inventory turnover will ensure a faster process of revenue generation but also a lower probability of depreciation of the company’s inventory. In several studies, we record the analysis of activity indicators in connection with the assessment of the impact of property items on the profitability of the company (Gazi et al.,2022;Hunjra et al.,2011). While Pham et al. (2020) concluded that there is a positive relationship between receivables turnover time, inventory turnover time, liability maturity period, and profitability, Rezai and Pourali (2015), on the contrary, identified the inverse nature of the mutual connection between the mentioned activity indicators and profitability. Different results were also achieved by Tahir and Anuar (2016), who, based on the evaluation of 127 companies in the textile industry, confirmed the existence of a negative relationship between receivables turnover time and profitability. On the other hand, they established a positive relationship between profitability and the turnover period of liabilities and the turnover period of receivables. Activity indicators are also included in the analysis of bankruptcy models as variables involved in predicting the future financial situation of the company. One of the studies focused on the issue was also published by Kliestik et al. (2020), who dealt with prediction models of transitive economies. The result of the investigation was the identification of financial indicators with the greatest frequency of occurrence in the given models. Out of a set of 917 indicators, asset turnover ranked third. A similar study was carried out by Kovacova et al. (2019), in which they used constructed bankruptcy prediction models in the territory of the Visegrad Four countries. From the group of activity indicators, the ratio of sales to total assets was also most often used, but it was part of only the Czech and Polish prediction models. In the case of the Slovak Republic and Hungary, the occurrence of the indicator is zero (Gundova & Medvedova,2016;Valaskova et al.,2021). We can also identify the use of activity indicators when assessing the financial performance of selected business entities (Valaskova et al.,2019). For example, Shukla and Roopa (2017) deal with the mentioned issue, whose aim was to determine the financial performance of Indian telecommunication service providers. Podhorska and Siekelova (2020) compared the financial situation of companies from the IT sector. Selected activity indicators can also be found in the article by Rafaqat and Rafaqat (2020), who analysed the impact of mergers and acquisitions on the financial performance of technology companies. In their conclusions, they stated that it was based on activity indicators that they identified the significant effects of the mentioned forms of direct foreign investment on the financial performance of business entities. In the company’s management system, the evaluation of the company’s efficiency occupies a prominent place, since the adoption of strategically important managerial decisions depends on its results. Economies 2025,13, 26 6 of 36 Since business efficiency is a multidimensional phenomenon, its evaluation involves the use of many indicators, which complicates management (Kliestik et al.,2020). The integrated approach as a modern, progressive, methodical apparatus makes it possible to systematise indicators into sub-indices and thus obtain one integrated indicator of the business efficiency of enterprises (Balaniuk et al.,2020). Activity indicators, together with recommendations arising from the achieved results, represent an important part of the analysis of the company’s financial health. Ultimately, the form of asset management has a major impact on growth, but also on profit decline (Istok & Kanderova,2019;Purwanto & Bina,2016). It also indicates the company’s position in the environment of market competition. Business efficiency of a business is the most important sign of its viability. Business efficiency is primarily the ability of a business to generate income and profit even under the most adverse external and internal conditions. In this case, there are also external conditions that do not directly depend on the company’s actions, especially market demand, business conditions, the overall state of the company, and the state of the financial and credit system (Valaskova et al.,2021). There are also internal conditions that are created because of the enterprise, especially value-added production, resource potential, production capacity, innovation, etc. In this regard, the assessment of the business efficiency of the enterprise is a multifaceted component of management, which includes a significant number of absolute or monetary indicators and indicators, their dynamics, and criteria (Gajdosikova et al.,2022). The results from the Visegrad Four region assessing efficiency are as follows: Kliestik et al. (2020) emphasised that structural economic factors heavily influence asset efficiency and financial health. Similarly, Gajdosikova and Pavic Kramaric (2023) highlighted the role of divergent national policies in shaping financial health indicators across industries. Analysing the efficiency of corporate assets and fixed assets utilization highlights notable regional differences among Visegrad Group countries. Indicators analysing asset efficiency recorded the best results in Polish and Czech companies. However, Svabova et al. (2020), who analysed financial data from 400 Slovak firms, argue that insufficient reinvestment in capital assets significantly contributes to inefficiency in Slovak companies. Despite these shortcomings, Slovak firms demonstrate exceptional performance in managing warehouse stocks. This finding aligns with Vavrek et al. (2021), who analysed 469 Slovak agricultural enterprises and emphasised the importance of inventory management in mitigating financial instability. Mazanec (2022) notes that success in optimization in collection period ratio can be gained through the implementation of strict credit management policies. Jencova et al. (2024) add that they applied multicriteria evaluation methods (MCEM) and nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) to assess hospital performance in Slovakia during pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis periods. Their research demonstrates how temporal changes in performance rankings can highlight strengths and weaknesses in operational and financial strategies. Papikova and Papik (2022) further expand the scope by examining the role of intellectual capital in determining profitability. Their analysis of 24,351 Slovak SMEs highlights the positive relationship between intellectual capital and profitability before the pandemic, as well as the challenges faced during the crisis. Restrictions primarily affected sectors like tourism and gastronomy, where structural capital and capital-employed efficiencies had a negative impact on profitability. This sector-specific vulnerability highlights the broader theme of the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on industries with limited adaptability. Valaskova et al. (2023b) contribute to the understanding of how corporate debt influences financial health and resilience. Using the Friedman test to analyse Slovak firms from 2018 to 2021, they identified significant shifts in financial indicators, particularly in Economies 2025,13, 26 7 of 36 self-financing and equity leverage ratios. Their findings underscore the pandemic’s adverse effects on corporate indebtedness while emphasizing the need for robust debt policies to ensure long-term financial stability. In the service sector, Bacik et al. (2020) examined 585 hotel businesses across the V4 region to investigate the impact of industry characteristics on financial stability and activity indicators. Their study revealed that Polish firms outperformed their Slovak counterparts in generating consistent returns from fixed assets, attributed to better capital utilization strategies. Similarly, Vitéz-Durgula et al. (2023) analysed healthcare SMEs across the V4 countries and noted that Polish and Czech firms showcased superior asset management efficiency compared to Slovak enterprises, which face challenges in reinvestment. Between 2020 and 2021, activity indicators across the V4 countries demonstrated a predominantly negative trend. Simionescu et al. (2021) observe that the adoption of digital tools during the COVID-19 pandemic improved financial performance in key sectors across the V4 region, particularly in Poland and Hungary. 3. Materials and Methods The origin data were gained from Database Orbis, provided by Moody’s (Moody’s, 2024). The sample after removing missing values consisted of 48,650 enterprises from the Visegrad Group. This group of countries represents the political grouping of Central European states, specifically the regional cooperation of Slovakia (SK), the Czech Republic (CZ), Hungary (HU), and Poland (PL). The largest number of assessed business entities have Polish nationality. In total, the sample comprises 20,479 Polish enterprises, accounting for a 42.09% share. Furthermore, 16,901 business entities, holding a 34.74% share, represent the Slovak Republic. The sample also includes 5,354 enterprises from the Czech Republic and 5,916 enterprises from Hungary that are analysed. It was evaluated over seven years ( 2017–2023 ), covering the period before (2017–2019), during (2020–2021), and after (2022–2023) the COVID-19 pandemic. Table 1shows the structure of the final sample according to the NACE (statistical classification of economic activities in the European community). Table 1. Structure of the sample according to NACE. Sector NACE Description Number of Enterprises Share A Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 2411 4.96% B Mining and quarrying 240 0.49% C Manufacturing 11,110 22.84% DElectricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning supply 1042 2.14% EWater supply, sewerage, waste management, and remediation activities 1150 2.36% F Construction 3558 7.31% GWholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles 12,614 25.93% H Transporting and storage 2424 4.98% I Accommodation and food service activities 821 1.69% J Information and communication 1608 3.31% K Financial and insurance activities 675 1.39% L Real estate activities 4454 9.16% MProfessional, scientific, and technical activities 3086 6.34% N Administrative and support service activities 1709 3.51% OPublic administration and defence, compulsory social security 29 0.06% P Education 245 0.50% Q Human health and social work activities 777 1.60% R Arts, entertainment, and recreation 441 0.91% S Other service activities 256 0.53% Source: own processing. Economies 2025,13, 26 8 of 36 There are three groups into which the activity ratios fall. Turnover ratios ( Equations (1)–(3) determine the number of conversions of a particular asset over the year. Then, the inverted values of these ratios express the level of commitment (Equations (4)–(6). Finally, the turnover period ratios (Equations (7)–(11) represent the duration of a single conversion in days (Zagita et al.,2024). The coefficients of commitment are based on the same principle as for the turnover period ratios, but the difference is in the use of a time interval (Bartosova & Kral,2016). The calculation of ratios is as follows, and it is based on Aqil et al. (2019); Bărbu t , ă-Mi s , u et al. (2019); Kwak (2019); Lian et al. (2021); Yousaf et al. (2021). Asset turnover = sales average total assets (1) Fixed asset turnover = sales average fixed assets (2) Inventory turnover = sales average inventory (3) Asset to sales ratio = average total assets sales (4) Fixed asset to sales ratio = average fixed assets sales (5) Inventory turnover period = average inventory sales (6) Inventory to sales ratio = average total assets sales (7) Fixed asset turnover period = average fixed assets sales ·365 (8) Inventory turnover period = average inventory sales ·365 (9) Collection period ratio = average current trade receivables sales ·365 (10) Credit period ratio = average current trade liabilities sales ·365 (11) Verification of a normal distribution is the basic premise of the application of several statistical methods. It involves testing the normal distribution of the analysed set. If the sample of the data set includes at least 50 measurements, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test is preferred (Linares-Mustaros et al.,2022). Based on pre-processing, the final sample of all calculated ratios for each year in this research cannot confirm the normal distribution of data. That is why non-parametric tests were applied for testing. The Friedman test, the first mentioned statistical procedure, identifies differences between dependent samples. The rejection of the null hypothesis indicates significant differences between the distributions. In addition, it was necessary to run pairwise comparisons (Liu & Xu,2022). The following hypotheses were tested: H 0a .The distributions of activity ratios (asset turnover, fixed asset turnover, inventory turnover, asset to sales ratio, fixed asset to sales ratio, inventory to sales ratio, asset turnover period, fixed asset turnover period, inventory turnover period, collection period ratio) are not influenced by the specific year. H 1a .The distributions of activity ratio (asset turnover, fixed asset turnover, inventory turnover, asset to sales ratio, fixed asset to sales ratio, inventory to sales ratio, asset turnover period, fixed asset Economies 2025,13, 26 15 of 36 Table 8. Pairwise comparison of countries for activity ratios. Ratio p-Value 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Asset turnover CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-HU 0.179 CZ-HU 0.328 CZ-HU 0.183 - - - - CZ-HU 0.115 CZ-HU 0.272 Fixed asset turnover CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.663 CZ-HU 0.200 - - CZ-HU 0.059 CZ-HU 0.158 Inventory turnover CZ-HU 0.717 CZ-HU 0.951 CZ-HU 0.334 CZ-HU 0.312 CZ-HU 0.068 CZ-HU 0.263 CZ-HU 0.294 Asset to sales ratio CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-HU 0.126 CZ-HU 0.279 CZ-HU 0.153 - - - - CZ-HU 0.102 CZ-HU 0.196 Fixed asset to sales ratio CZ-PL 0.921 CZ-PL 0.410 CZ-PL 0.451 CZ-PL 0.525 - - CZ-PL 0.776 CZ-PL 0.792 CZ-HU 0.126 CZ-HU 0.162 CZ-HU 0.070 - - - - CZ-HU 0.074 CZ-HU 0.108 Inventory to sales ratio CZ-PL 0.444 CZ-PL 0.103 - - - - - - CZ-PL 0.139 CZ-PL 0.217 - - - - - - HU-PL 0.230 HU-PL 0.786 - - - - CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 Asset turnover period CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-HU 0.126 CZ-HU 0.279 CZ-HU 0.153 - - - - CZ-HU 0.102 CZ-HU 0.196 Fixed asset turnover period CZ-PL 0.921 CZ-PL 0.410 CZ-PL 0.451 CZ-PL 0.525 - - CZ-PL 0.776 CZ-PL 0.792 CZ-HU 0.126 CZ-HU 0.162 CZ-HU 0.070 - - - - CZ-HU 0.074 CZ-HU 0.108 Inventory turnover period CZ-PL 0.444 CZ-PL 0.103 - - - - - - CZ-PL 0.139 CZ-PL 0.217 - - - - - - HU-PL 0.230 HU-PL 0.786 - - - - CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 CZ-HU 0.999 Collection period ratio CZ-PL 0.060 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.093 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 CZ-PL 0.999 Credit period ratio - - - - - - SK-PL 0.753 SK-PL 0.999 - - - - Source: own processing. The Czech Republic and Hungary have the same values during each year (2017–2023) analysed for inventory turnover, inventory to sales ratio and inventory turnover period. There are no differences in the fixed asset turnover ratio values between the Czech Republic and Hungary, except for in the year 2021. The Czech Republic and Hungary also have similar developments in asset turnover, asset to sales ratio, fixed asset to sales ratio, asset turnover period, and fixed asset turnover period, except for the pandemic years 2020 and 2021. The values of the inventory to sales ratio and inventory turnover period do not differ in the pandemic years for Poland and Hungary. The credit period ratio does not differ in the pandemic years for Poland and Slovakia. In all other pairwise comparisons of countries, significant differences have occurred. 6. Conclusions The aim of this article was to define the level of business activity in the Visegrad Four in the pre-crisis, during-crisis, and post-crisis periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis covered the period from 2017 to 2023. Eleven activity ratios (asset turnover, fixed asset turnover, inventory turnover, asset to sales ratio, fixed asset to sales ratio, inventory to sales ratio, asset turnover period, fixed asset turnover period, inventory turnover period, collection period ratio, credit period ratio) were computed for 48,650 enterprises. Median values for all activity ratios according to countries were set. All V4 countries experienced a decline in asset turnover, fixed asset turnover, and inventory turnover and an increase in asset to sales ratio, fixed asset to sales ratio, and inventory to sales ratio during the pandemic, reflecting a lower ability to generate revenue from assets due to restrictions and the economic downturn. Slovakia and the Czech Republic had a partial recovery in 2021 in increasing asset turnover, fixed asset turnover, and inventory turnover, which they attributed to growing sales or asset optimization. Poland noted an upward trend in asset turnover and fixed asset turnover. In contrast, Hungary showed stagnation, indicating more persistent difficulties in increasing asset turnover, fixed asset turnover, and a downward Economies 2025,13, 26 16 of 36 trend in asset to sales ratio, fixed asset to sales ratio, and inventory to sales ratio. Asset to sales ratio and fixed asset ratio increased in all countries in 2020, reflecting lower sales and lower asset utilization efficiency. There was an improvement in 2021, although some countries (e.g., Hungary) still showed weaker results. The asset turnover period and fixed asset turnover period increased in all V4 countries during the pandemic. During the asset turnover period, Slovakia and Hungary experienced the most significant fluctuations, while the Czech Republic and Poland showed a smaller deterioration. In the post-pandemic period, the situation in Slovakia, Czechia, and Poland improved, while Hungary stagnated. After the pandemic subsided, the Czech Republic and Poland recovered quickly, while Hungary showed a slower return and Slovakia returned to the pre-crisis level. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the inventory turnover period increased during the pandemic. On the other hand, Poland and Hungary maintained stability, while Hungary showed a slight improvement. During the second year of the pandemic and the post-pandemic period, Hungary and Poland experienced stability in their values, whereas Slovakia and Czechia experienced further deterioration, with an increase in these values during the post-pandemic period. The collection period ratio remained relatively stable in all countries during the pandemic. Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Poland showed only minimal changes, while Hungary maintained the most efficient receivables management. Hungary maintained the best results in the V4. The credit period ratio remained largely stable during the pandemic, with a slight decrease in Poland and Hungary, indicating tighter credit conditions. The values of credit period ratio remained stable, with no significant changes in Slovakia and Czechia. The Friedman test proved the significant differences in development over the period for all ratios, but in addition, pairwise comparison detected similarities between precrisis and post-crisis periods within inventory turnover, inventory to sales ratio, and inventory turnover period. The credit period ratio did not show differences between the two pandemic years. The Kruskal–Wallis test detected significant differences between all ratios throughout all involved countries. Theoretical implications of the research may be derived as follows. We confirmed that the pandemic significantly impacted business efficiency. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted business activity across several countries. The article develops knowledge about economic crises and their impact on business activity indicators, thereby improving the understanding of the dynamics of business activity in times of crisis. We also identified differences between economically and politically related countries. The analysis reveals that the impact of the pandemic varied among the V4 countries (Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary), potentially serving as a foundation for future research on the diverse responses of economies and sectors to the crisis. Several performance-related indicators have demonstrated sensitivity to economic shifts, making them valuable tools for evaluating the crisis resilience of enterprises. Future research could also focus on disclosure of specific business tools that caused similarities between 2017, 2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023 within inventory turnover, inventory to sales ratio, and inventory turnover period and similarities between credit period ratio in 2020 and 2021 in general. Practical implications of the research may be set as follows. Findings on differences between countries and sectors can be useful for governments and policymakers in designing support for businesses during future crises to support economic policy. Businesses can use this knowledge to better prepare for crises. Findings on the importance of inventory optimization and efficient asset utilization can serve as a guide for managers to improve financial stability and performance. Businesses can use the indicators as tools for monitoring their own financial performance and benchmarking. Businesses can use the values as reference points to compare their own developments and pinpoint areas for enhancing their Economies 2025,13, 26 17 of 36 business efficiency. The next investigation could analyse the sizes of enterprises, expanding the scope from the V4 region to the Bucharest Nine (B9) and incorporating all ratios related to liquidity, profitability, and indebtedness. We address the limitations by using no-balance samples based on countries and NACE and include ratios with zero values to maintain the robustness of the samples. We calculate the ratios annually, but monitoring data quarterly or monthly could potentially capture development, trends, and seasonality more systematically. This approach could have led to a smaller sample size, but it would have yielded more accurate results. This paves the way for future collaborations between governments, municipalities, business agencies, and enterprises to comprehensively monitor business activity, thereby enhancing the efficiency of policymakers and recipients of these decisions. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.D. and K.B.; methodology, P.D.; software, K.B.; validation, R.B. and E.K.; formal analysis, R.B. and E.K.; investigation, R.B. and E.K.; resources, R.B. and K.B.; data curation, P.D.; writing—original draft preparation, E.K.; writing—review and editing, R.B.; visualization, E.K.; supervision, P.D.; project administration, P.D.; funding acquisition, P.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: This research was financially supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency—Grant VEGA 1/0677/22: Quo Vadis, Bankruptcy Models? Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study with Emphasis on Changes Determined by COVID 19. Conflicts of Interest: Author Klaudia Bicanovska was employed by the company Sungwoo Hitech Slovakia s.r.o. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Median values of asset turnover according to NACE. Asset Turnover [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 A SK 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.71 0.70 0.68 CZ 0.62 0.62 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.62 PL 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.59 0.62 0.61 0.61 HU 0.82 0.80 0.82 0.78 0.80 0.80 0.81 B SK 0.94 1.50 0.82 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.87 CZ 0.78 0.79 0.74 0.73 0.79 0.79 0.77 PL 1.20 0.97 1.4 0.97 0.94 1.00 1.02 HU 0.92 1.1 1.3 0.79 0.92 0.92 0.96 C SK 1.33 1.31 1.3 1.19 1.23 1.31 1.33 CZ 1.55 1.49 1.47 1.40 1.46 1.49 1.53 PL 1.50 1.49 1.48 1.37 1.46 1.44 1.49 HU 1.39 1.39 1.35 1.22 1.25 1.26 1.31 D SK 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.46 0.45 0.43 CZ 0.55 0.55 0.57 0.58 0.63 0.60 0.58 PL 0.68 0.68 0.73 0.70 0.77 0.74 0.72 HU 0.91 0.87 0.97 0.86 0.96 0.92 0.90 Economies 2025,13, 26 18 of 36 Table A1. Cont. Asset Turnover [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 E SK 0.79 0.83 0.82 0.76 0.86 0.82 0.82 CZ 1.19 1.28 1.25 1.29 1.18 1.20 1.18 PL 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.63 0.68 0.64 0.62 HU 1.19 1.14 1.15 1.18 1.21 1.17 1.18 F SK 1.12 1.13 1.1 0.98 0.96 0.99 1.01 CZ 1.50 1.54 1.45 1.43 1.44 1.46 1.51 PL 1.33 1.43 1.39 1.21 1.25 1.28 1.31 HU 1.21 1.39 1.41 1.25 1.24 1.21 1.23 G SK 1.25 1.26 1.2 1.13 1.15 1.18 1.21 CZ 1.96 1.93 1.93 1.81 1.93 1.91 1.91 PL 2.13 2.13 2.10 1.94 2.70 2.03 2.07 HU 1.97 1.98 2.00 1.90 1.86 1.91 1.99 H SK 1.38 1.41 1.33 1.31 1.31 1.36 1.34 CZ 1.88 1.85 1.84 1.73 1.67 1.78 1.81 PL 1.93 1.90 1.84 1.69 1.77 1.81 1.88 HU 1.31 1.36 1.34 1.25 1.32 1.33 1.33 I SK 0.39 0.39 0.42 0.32 0.31 0.33 0.34 CZ 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.36 PL 0.74 0.75 0.76 0.46 0.59 0.62 0.72 HU 0.77 0.74 0.69 0.48 0.59 0.63 0.71 J SK 1.50 1.50 1.00 0.94 0.94 1.04 1.05 CZ 1.47 1.51 1.67 1.49 1.49 1.46 1.51 PL 1.31 1.31 1.33 1.24 1.32 1.31 1.31 HU 1.33 1.29 1.25 1.22 1.17 1.20 1.23 K SK 0.71 0.74 0.78 0.88 0.87 0.84 0.78 CZ 1.11 1.16 1.20 1.15 1.21 1.18 1.17 PL 0.86 0.91 1.50 0.93 0.98 0.94 0.92 HU 0.63 0.60 0.69 0.63 0.64 0.63 0.63 L SK 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 CZ 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 PL 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.32 0.31 0.30 HU 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.18 M SK 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.43 0.42 0.43 CZ 1.25 1.17 1.20 1.11 1.16 1.20 1.23 PL 1.25 1.30 1.30 1.22 1.18 1.18 1.23 HU 0.97 0.97 1.00 0.91 0.95 0.97 0.98 N SK 0.55 0.54 0.56 0.50 0.54 0.54 0.55 CZ 1.74 1.77 1.71 1.53 1.49 1.60 1.69 PL 1.83 1.89 1.82 1.52 1.51 1.69 1.78 HU 1.47 1.48 1.70 1.38 1.24 1.42 1.49 O SK 1.39 1.45 1.70 1.75 1.32 1.42 1.44 CZ 1.70 0.83 0.50 0.59 0.31 0.52 0.80 PL 0.90 0.86 0.84 0.87 0.79 0.79 0.93 HU 0.79 0.57 0.76 0.52 0.59 0.60 0.63 P SK 0.41 0.48 0.45 0.32 0.31 0.36 0.40 CZ 0.83 0.77 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.84 0.82 PL 0.66 0.67 0.68 0.64 0.64 0.65 0.66 HU 1.41 0.52 0.66 0.52 1.50 1.46 1.26 Q SK 1.80 1.12 1.50 1.50 1.14 1.12 1.14 CZ 1.21 1.50 1.37 1.40 1.53 1.49 1.46 PL 1.16 1.14 1.23 1.17 1.33 1.28 1.26 HU 1.62 1.55 1.37 1.34 1.36 1.49 1.58 R SK 0.46 0.42 0.41 0.35 0.34 0.40 0.43 CZ 0.92 0.97 1.70 0.91 1.30 1.05 1.02 PL 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.57 0.53 0.62 0.66 HU 1.11 0.95 1.00 0.78 0.77 0.80 0.84 S SK 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.58 0.73 0.72 0.72 CZ 1.27 1.80 1.21 1.13 1.10 0.99 1.01 PL 1.40 0.98 1.50 0.97 0.94 0.96 1.02 HU 0.82 0.89 1.30 0.74 0.81 0.83 0.87 Source: own processing. Economies 2025,13, 26 19 of 36 Table A2. Median values of fixed asset turnover according to NACE. Fixed Asset Turnover [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 A SK 1.80 1.14 1.12 1.10 1.27 1.31 1.26 CZ 1.00 1.10 0.94 0.96 0.97 1.01 1.03 PL 0.75 0.73 0.72 0.80 0.91 0.88 0.85 HU 1.39 1.37 1.35 1.31 1.34 1.36 1.38 B SK 1.59 1.82 1.38 1.44 1.46 1.49 1.53 CZ 1.39 1.59 1.37 1.30 1.49 1.51 1.58 PL 1.74 2.20 1.95 1.76 1.98 2.03 1.91 HU 1.96 2.19 1.97 1.79 1.94 1.95 1.95 C SK 3.60 3.59 3.59 3.31 3.70 3.69 3.69 CZ 3.60 3.51 3.52 3.32 3.71 3.55 3.69 PL 3.98 3.88 3.90 3.72 4.13 3.98 3.83 HU 3.10 3.20 2.90 2.70 2.89 3.02 3.11 D SK 0.49 0.51 0.58 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.70 CZ 0.61 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.74 0.79 0.77 PL 0.82 0.82 0.86 0.84 0.93 0.90 0.89 HU 1.26 1.15 1.23 1.16 1.48 1.44 1.36 E SK 1.81 1.83 1.99 1.97 2.55 2.43 2.26 CZ 2.79 2.53 2.70 2.43 2.65 2.62 2.84 PL 0.61 0.62 0.64 0.68 0.71 0.69 0.69 HU 2.28 2.53 2.63 2.75 2.82 2.62 2.55 F SK 5.92 5.74 5.55 5.12 4.77 5.85 6.22 CZ 6.47 7.15 6.91 6.24 6.70 7.11 7.11 PL 7.33 7.74 7.39 6.82 6.90 7.11 7.65 HU 6.55 6.58 6.80 5.69 6.15 6.63 7.11 G SK 7.27 7.30 7.19 6.52 6.96 8.29 8.29 CZ 10.87 10.87 10.53 10.71 11.56 12.44 12.44 PL 12.58 12.90 12.67 11.99 13.16 14.21 12.44 HU 11.84 11.84 12.8 11.35 11.79 12.44 12.44 H SK 3.39 3.60 3.55 3.73 4.10 4.33 4.15 CZ 4.63 4.60 4.80 4.51 4.16 4.74 5.24 PL 5.22 5.28 5.18 4.92 5.43 5.85 5.53 HU 2.42 2.54 2.65 2.81 2.86 2.69 2.76 I SK 0.44 0.44 0.47 0.34 0.34 0.40 0.43 CZ 0.59 0.64 0.73 0.58 0.69 0.74 0.72 PL 0.69 0.74 0.75 0.45 0.61 0.64 0.73 HU 0.63 0.56 0.63 0.44 0.52 0.60 0.61 J SK 6.45 5.56 5.62 5.16 4.73 6.63 7.65 CZ 12.20 13.68 11.45 12.31 13.68 14.21 14.21 PL 7.52 8.27 7.78 7.58 7.40 8.29 7.65 HU 7.68 7.68 6.72 5.97 5.89 6.63 7.65 K SK 4.44 3.76 3.46 2.88 2.52 5.24 6.63 CZ 1.22 3.24 2.37 1.69 2.10 2.21 2.62 PL 3.30 3.81 3.70 2.95 3.14 3.98 3.98 HU 2.11 1.52 2.60 1.59 1.70 2.21 2.26 L SK 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 CZ 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 PL 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.32 0.33 HU 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.22 M SK 1.27 1.20 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.66 1.69 CZ 7.20 6.63 7.30 5.88 6.11 7.11 8.29 PL 6.24 6.44 6.40 6.14 6.76 7.11 6.63 HU 4.90 3.89 3.98 4.24 4.16 4.52 4.33 N SK 1.55 1.35 1.37 1.23 1.25 2.12 2.12 CZ 6.72 5.80 6.37 5.76 4.81 8.29 7.65 PL 11.53 11.44 11.30 10.69 10.23 12.44 12.44 HU 4.68 5.11 5.17 3.96 3.73 4.74 5.24 O SK 9.73 9.46 12.97 10.22 5.42 8.29 9.05 CZ 2.81 1.36 1.65 1.80 0.53 0.80 1.02 PL 2.59 2.45 2.58 2.79 2.63 2.76 2.76 HU 1.99 2.20 2.23 1.44 2.00 1.88 2.03 P SK 0.76 0.72 1.11 0.92 0.91 1.00 1.09 CZ 2.60 1.46 1.26 1.20 1.23 1.18 1.28 PL 0.69 0.75 0.70 0.77 0.81 0.75 0.72 HU 8.77 8.48 8.95 6.4 12.37 9.95 8.29 Q SK 3.61 3.91 3.77 3.82 4.39 3.98 4.33 CZ 2.38 2.67 2.85 2.96 3.33 3.32 3.02 PL 2.67 2.75 2.86 2.68 3.28 2.69 2.84 HU 2.68 2.42 2.90 3.13 3.51 3.32 3.11 Economies 2025,13, 26 20 of 36 Table A2. Cont. Fixed Asset Turnover [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 R SK 0.61 0.51 0.47 0.37 0.44 0.48 0.56 CZ 2.17 2.10 3.9 3.53 3.43 3.43 3.69 PL 0.57 0.58 0.62 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.63 HU 1.77 1.84 2.13 1.54 1.76 2.07 2.26 S SK 2.71 2.54 3.28 2.23 2.34 2.49 2.84 CZ 6.54 7.12 5.42 7.42 6.98 6.63 7.11 PL 1.85 1.96 1.94 1.69 1.88 1.84 1.91 HU 0.64 1.40 0.78 0.60 0.54 0.60 0.65 Source: own processing. Table A3. Median values of inventory turnover according to NACE. Inventory Turnover [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 A SK 3.75 3.79 3.53 3.58 3.99 4.09 4.12 CZ 3.53 3.72 3.55 3.46 3.62 3.65 3.70 PL 3.33 3.28 3.27 3.36 3.31 3.33 3.38 HU 4.18 3.98 4.20 4.58 4.21 4.26 4.30 B SK 15.20 15.76 15.63 18.18 14.42 14.59 14.98 CZ 14.24 17.30 13.94 12.54 13.29 14.05 14.33 PL 14.48 14.72 12.85 12.28 12.49 13.02 14.07 HU 9.51 10.57 10.70 7.93 9.10 9.45 10.15 C SK 9.50 9.10 9.26 8.66 7.76 8.10 8.86 CZ 7.83 7.77 7.76 7.25 6.47 6.74 7.12 PL 8.75 8.72 8.8 8.32 7.46 7.89 8.11 HU 7.76 7.53 7.56 7.36 6.70 7.12 7.62 D SK 10.87 11.99 12.63 11.32 14.31 13.15 12.66 CZ 26.59 23.87 20.92 23.33 33.18 28.17 27.54 PL 13.85 11.90 11.70 13.84 15.57 14.96 13.59 HU 24.43 24.30 24.15 31.49 26.17 25.53 24.93 E SK 42.05 42.78 42.05 39.29 44.50 43.08 44.20 CZ 44.53 52.74 51.37 45.61 47.82 48.86 49.77 PL 75.42 76.27 72.67 75.29 73.97 74.62 74.98 HU 44.81 45.28 47.79 50.8 53.53 50.13 49.11 F SK 16.00 16.94 17.78 15.35 12.18 13.13 14.87 CZ 15.50 18.20 19.28 19.46 15.17 16.25 17.84 PL 12.83 13.70 14.00 12.41 10.77 11.27 12.98 HU 14.25 14.72 16.47 22.25 21.66 18.22 20.14 G SK 7.66 7.56 7.51 6.98 7.21 7.26 7.54 CZ 7.84 7.66 7.50 7.33 7.80 7.80 7.76 PL 8.89 8.85 8.74 8.70 8.58 8.81 8.85 HU 8.91 8.80 9.90 8.86 8.81 8.87 9.03 H SK 59.14 66.49 74.76 64.84 66.32 66.87 64.15 CZ 56.03 57.56 62.45 60.73 57.04 57.19 59.81 PL 42.02 44.36 45.20 43.02 42.30 44.77 45.38 HU 98.14 94.74 91.76 100.61 99.04 100.93 100.04 I SK 39.03 36.85 42.02 34.73 32.52 34.55 36.89 CZ 49.44 73.44 74.60 60.42 52.98 56.48 58.93 PL 71.89 77.51 79.14 66.52 66.31 69.11 72.57 HU 73.61 76.72 71.13 52.60 68.15 72.24 74.63 J SK 11.56 11.70 9.92 9.22 7.68 8.44 10.17 CZ 17.00 15.53 17.15 18.73 19.45 18.14 18.99 PL 17.19 19.16 15.42 16.11 14.42 16.42 18.31 HU 11.40 5.75 6.66 7.51 5.60 5.74 6.22 K SK0000000 CZ0000000 PL0000000 HU0000000 L SK0000000 CZ0000000 PL0000000 HU0000000 M SK 0 0 0.04 0.12 0.19 0.17 0.13 CZ 7.54 6.60 6.69 6.71 6.72 6.76 6.69 PL 3.34 3.37 2.82 1.67 2.97 3.36 3.32 HU 3.51 4.16 3.86 2.35 2.49 2.67 3.11 Economies 2025,13, 26 21 of 36 Table A3. Cont. Inventory Turnover [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 N SK 0.52 0.85 1.23 0.92 1.13 0.96 1.05 CZ 10.40 22.20 14.59 12.20 15.47 16.13 14.65 PL 11.90 13.57 12.40 14.10 12.41 13.52 14.03 HU 20.98 23.60 20.63 17.33 17.13 19.48 20.36 O SK 103.09 46.67 295.46 391.47 180.77 195.45 130.11 CZ 2.56 4.67 5.12 2.32 1.62 2.94 4.06 PL 0.18 0 0.05 0 0.48 0 0 HU 11.49 11.52 12.26 10.67 13.44 12.68 11.97 P SK 7.10 7.60 8.58 5.66 6.54 7.16 7.90 CZ 44.82 18.53 9.69 2.83 10.26 19.67 13.52 PL 84.78 84.24 67.88 76.7 85.54 86.88 84.29 HU 36.61 87.19 71.31 95.06 35.82 36.51 74.10 Q SK 50.78 49.43 50.10 34.31 41.51 45.13 50.23 CZ 59.53 60.13 62.83 52.61 60.25 60.54 61.57 PL 80.16 84.63 89.25 54.86 68.38 77.16 80.97 HU 93.93 99.05 90.09 58.75 56.75 90.35 93.20 R SK 41.76 67.01 65.46 52.09 26.50 41.86 54.46 CZ 133.97 119.33 102.77 77.88 89.94 90.96 102.37 PL 103.51 102.28 98.93 75.57 70.17 84.27 97.21 HU 102.56 90.03 114.53 69.37 88.47 91.40 98.67 S SK 20.61 16.60 18.18 13.11 18.91 19.12 18.30 CZ 18.94 25.20 14.20 20.72 19.96 20.04 22.57 PL 22.98 21.55 18.15 19.46 17.84 19.46 21.07 HU 63.71 61.65 59.56 51.78 71.16 62.49 61.23 Source: own processing. Table A4. Median values of asset to sales ratio according to NACE. Asset to Sales Ratio [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 A SK 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.55 1.42 1.43 1.46 CZ 1.60 1.63 1.67 1.66 1.64 1.64 1.61 PL 1.71 1.73 1.75 1.69 1.60 1.63 1.64 HU 1.22 1.24 1.22 1.29 1.25 1.24 1.23 B SK 1.70 0.96 1.22 1.26 1.25 1.19 1.15 CZ 1.29 1.26 1.35 1.36 1.26 1.26 1.29 PL 0.98 1.30 0.96 1.30 1.70 1.00 0.98 HU 1.90 0.99 0.97 1.26 1.80 1.08 1.04 C SK 0.75 0.77 0.77 0.84 0.81 0.76 0.75 CZ 0.65 0.67 0.68 0.71 0.68 0.67 0.65 PL 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.73 0.69 0.69 0.67 HU 0.72 0.72 0.74 0.82 0.80 0.79 0.76 D SK 2.44 2.52 2.48 2.38 2.17 2.21 2.34 CZ 1.83 1.83 1.77 1.73 1.58 1.66 1.71 PL 1.47 1.48 1.37 1.42 1.31 1.34 1.38 HU 1.10 1.15 1.30 1.16 1.40 1.08 1.10 E SK 1.27 1.21 1.23 1.32 1.17 1.21 1.22 CZ 0.84 0.78 0.80 0.78 0.85 0.83 0.84 PL 1.74 1.68 1.62 1.58 1.48 1.55 1.60 HU 0.84 0.88 0.87 0.85 0.83 0.85 0.84 F SK 0.89 0.88 0.91 1.20 1.50 1.01 0.99 CZ 0.66 0.65 0.69 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.66 PL 0.75 0.70 0.72 0.82 0.80 0.78 0.76 HU 0.83 0.72 0.71 0.80 0.80 0.82 0.81 G SK 0.80 0.80 0.84 0.88 0.87 0.84 0.82 CZ 0.51 0.52 0.52 0.55 0.52 0.52 0.52 PL 0.47 0.47 0.48 0.51 0.48 0.49 0.48 HU 0.51 0.51 0.5 0.53 0.54 0.52 0.50 H SK 0.72 0.71 0.75 0.76 0.76 0.73 0.74 CZ 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.58 0.60 0.56 0.55 PL 0.52 0.53 0.54 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.53 HU 0.76 0.73 0.74 0.80 0.76 0.75 0.75 I SK 2.59 2.55 2.37 3.15 3.18 3.03 2.89 CZ 2.23 2.13 2.60 3.13 3.20 2.91 2.73 PL 1.35 1.33 1.32 2.17 1.69 1.60 1.38 HU 1.29 1.35 1.44 2.70 1.69 1.57 1.41 Economies 2025,13, 26 22 of 36 Table A4. Cont. Asset to Sales Ratio [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 J SK 0.95 0.95 1.00 1.60 1.60 0.96 0.95 CZ 0.68 0.66 0.60 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.66 PL 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.81 0.76 0.76 0.76 HU 0.75 0.78 0.80 0.82 0.85 0.83 0.81 K SK 1.41 1.24 1.27 1.14 1.14 1.19 1.27 CZ 0.90 0.87 0.83 0.87 0.83 0.84 0.85 PL 1.16 1.80 0.94 1.70 1.10 1.06 1.08 HU 1.58 1.67 1.44 1.58 1.57 1.57 1.58 L SK 6.47 6.57 6.56 6.99 6.84 6.72 6.57 CZ 8.11 8.2 7.49 7.94 7.52 7.67 7.74 PL 3.69 3.59 3.52 3.41 3.13 3.24 3.29 HU 5.56 5.13 5.33 5.70 5.47 5.48 5.47 M SK 2.34 2.36 2.34 2.35 2.35 2.36 2.33 CZ 0.80 0.85 0.83 0.90 0.86 0.83 0.81 PL 0.80 0.77 0.77 0.82 0.85 0.84 0.81 HU 1.30 1.30 1.00 1.10 1.60 1.03 1.02 N SK 1.83 1.87 1.77 2.10 1.83 1.83 1.81 CZ 0.58 0.56 0.58 0.65 0.67 0.62 0.59 PL 0.55 0.53 0.55 0.66 0.66 0.59 0.56 HU 0.68 0.68 0.59 0.72 0.81 0.70 0.67 O SK 0.72 0.69 0.59 0.57 0.76 0.70 0.69 CZ 0.93 1.21 2.00 1.70 3.21 1.93 1.25 PL 1.80 1.10 0.96 1.15 1.27 1.26 1.07 HU 1.54 2.45 2.92 2.40 1.82 1.66 1.57 P SK 2.42 2.70 2.21 3.80 3.20 2.76 2.48 CZ 1.23 1.30 1.18 1.18 1.25 1.18 1.22 PL 1.51 1.48 1.47 1.57 1.55 1.54 1.51 HU 0.71 1.93 1.51 1.93 0.67 0.68 0.79 Q SK 0.93 0.89 0.95 0.95 0.87 0.89 0.87 CZ 0.83 0.67 0.73 0.71 0.65 0.67 0.68 PL 0.86 0.88 0.81 0.85 0.75 0.78 0.79 HU 0.62 0.64 0.73 0.75 0.73 0.67 0.63 R SK 2.16 2.39 2.42 2.87 2.92 2.48 2.33 CZ 1.80 0.99 0.90 1.30 0.92 0.95 0.98 PL 1.46 1.50 1.53 1.76 1.88 1.61 1.50 HU 0.90 1.50 1.00 1.28 1.31 1.24 1.18 S SK 1.39 1.46 1.44 1.75 1.39 1.39 1.38 CZ 0.80 1.20 0.83 0.92 1.00 1.01 0.99 PL 0.96 1.20 0.95 1.30 1.70 1.04 0.98 HU 1.22 1.13 0.97 1.36 1.24 1.20 1.15 Source: own processing. Table A5. Median values of fixed asset to sales ratio according to NACE. Fixed Asset to Sales Ratio [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 A SK 0.90 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.78 0.76 0.79 CZ 1.00 0.98 1.60 1.50 1.40 0.99 0.97 PL 1.33 1.36 1.38 1.24 1.10 1.13 1.17 HU 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.74 0.73 0.72 B SK 0.63 0.55 0.72 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.65 CZ 0.72 0.63 0.73 0.77 0.67 0.66 0.63 PL 0.58 0.5 0.51 0.56 0.49 0.49 0.52 HU 0.51 0.46 0.51 0.56 0.52 0.51 0.51 C SK 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.27 CZ 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.3 0.27 0.28 0.27 PL 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.24 0.25 0.26 HU 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.37 0.34 0.33 0.32 D SK 2.4 1.96 1.70 1.49 1.41 1.40 1.43 CZ 1.51 1.45 1.53 1.51 1.25 1.26 1.29 PL 1.21 1.21 1.16 1.17 1.70 1.10 1.12 HU 0.79 0.87 0.81 0.86 0.64 0.69 0.73 E SK 0.52 0.54 0.48 0.5 0.39 0.41 0.44 CZ 0.34 0.38 0.36 0.41 0.37 0.38 0.35 PL 1.65 1.6 1.57 1.47 1.4 1.45 1.44 HU 0.43 0.4 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.38 0.39 Economies 2025,13, 26 23 of 36 Table A5. Cont. Fixed Asset to Sales Ratio [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 F SK 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.17 0.16 CZ 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.14 PL 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 HU 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14 G SK 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 CZ 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 PL 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.08 HU 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 H SK 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.23 0.24 CZ 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.19 0.22 0.21 0.19 PL 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.17 0.18 HU 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.36 I SK 2.23 2.22 1.99 2.8 2.84 2.50 2.34 CZ 1.68 1.57 1.37 1.71 1.39 1.34 1.38 PL 1.44 1.35 1.33 2.22 1.59 1.56 1.36 HU 1.57 1.61 1.47 2.19 1.88 1.66 1.64 J SK 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.13 CZ 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 PL 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 HU 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.13 K SK 0.12 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.22 0.19 0.15 CZ 0.30 0.31 0.42 0.41 0.5 0.45 0.38 PL 0.27 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.25 HU 0.46 0.59 0.45 0.54 0.46 0.45 0.44 L SK 5.34 5.38 5.5 5.44 5.24 5.21 5.27 CZ 7.57 7.23 6.80 6.90 6.53 6.49 6.73 PL 3.86 3.68 3.60 3.62 3.14 3.08 3.02 HU 5.30 4.76 4.72 4.46 4.54 4.49 4.60 M SK 0.60 0.66 0.63 0.70 0.62 0.60 0.59 CZ 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.12 PL 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.14 0.15 HU 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.22 0.23 N SK 0.44 0.52 0.49 0.47 0.45 0.47 0.47 CZ 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.13 PL 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 HU 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.24 0.23 0.21 0.19 O SK 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.11 CZ 0.36 0.73 0.60 0.56 1.89 1.25 0.98 PL 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.36 HU 0.54 0.59 0.48 0.72 0.51 0.53 0.49 P SK 0.92 0.89 0.89 0.82 1.10 1.00 0.91 CZ 0.49 0.73 0.83 0.83 0.81 0.84 0.78 PL 1.45 1.32 1.42 1.29 1.24 1.33 1.38 HU 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.08 0.10 0.12 Q SK 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.23 0.25 0.23 CZ 0.42 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.30 0.30 0.33 PL 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.37 0.30 0.37 0.35 HU 0.37 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.29 0.30 0.32 R SK 1.56 1.88 1.98 2.55 2.22 2.08 1.79 CZ 0.43 0.46 0.29 0.27 0.26 0.29 0.27 PL 1.76 1.72 1.62 1.93 1.86 1.79 1.59 HU 0.45 0.53 0.44 0.56 0.53 0.48 0.44 S SK 0.37 0.33 0.29 0.39 0.38 0.40 0.35 CZ 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.14 PL 0.54 0.51 0.51 0.59 0.53 0.54 0.52 HU 1.56 0.97 1.29 1.67 1.85 1.65 1.54 Source: own processing. Table A6. Median values of inventory to sales ratio according to NACE. Inventory to Sales Ratio [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 A SK 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.23 0.24 CZ 0.26 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 PL 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.27 HU 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.24 Economies 2025,13, 26 24 of 36 Table A6. Cont. Inventory to Sales Ratio [Coefficient] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 B SK 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 CZ 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 PL 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.05 HU 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 C SK 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09 CZ 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.12 0.13 PL 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 HU 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.13 D SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 HU 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 E SK 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 CZ 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 PL 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 HU 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 F SK 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 CZ 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 PL 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 HU 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 G SK 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 CZ 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 PL 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 HU 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 H SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.01 I SK 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 CZ 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 PL 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 HU 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 J SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N SK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Economies 2025,13, 26 31 of 36 Table A10. Cont. Collection Period Ratio [Day] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 J SK 69 62 63 58 56 59 63 CZ 54 55 51 48 48 50 50 PL 69 66 62 60 59 62 66 HU 36 40 40 33 36 40 40 K SK 39 39 38 40 37 39 39 CZ 41 37 40 37 31 35 37 PL 50 47 50 49 46 50 49 HU 11 10 10 16 18 16 16 L SK 38 36 36 39 41 38 39 CZ 30 29 26 32 27 29 31 PL 32 30 29 28 27 27 30 HU 14 14 11 10 9 11 14 M SK 64 62 61 60 60 60 60 CZ 59 62 58 53 55 58 60 PL 73 72 72 71 69 74 71 HU 39 39 36 32 29 35 29 N SK 51 51 51 53 48 50 51 CZ 44 47 48 45 43 46 46 PL 60 58 54 55 55 57 55 HU 32 31 28 27 30 30 32 O SK 62 72 66 63 89 75 77 CZ 25 42 43 59 72 66 60 PL 31 31 34 36 39 36 35 HU 13 13 18 6 7 10 14 P SK 44 37 33 33 32 35 35 CZ 23 22 18 24 18 20 22 PL 11 11 11 12 11 11 11 HU 23 23 38 24 27 23 24 Q SK 41 36 32 42 41 40 41 CZ 30 28 28 28 26 28 28 PL 34 34 33 35 36 33 34 HU 40 34 36 33 21 29 30 R SK 25 24 28 30 26 25 25 CZ 19 14 12 16 12 16 14 PL 17 16 15 17 18 17 17 HU 5 6 4 2 4 5 4 S SK 50 57 57 42 39 45 50 CZ 27 30 34 37 28 30 29 PL 24 26 25 27 28 28 25 HU 21 16 14 7 12 13 19 Source: own processing. Table A11. Median values of credit period ratio according to NACE. Credit Period Ratio [Day] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 A SK 46 46 49 48 44 46 46 CZ 25 27 28 26 29 27 28 PL 21 20 21 16 19 20 21 HU 19 22 23 20 18 20 20 Economies 2025,13, 26 32 of 36 Table A11. Cont. Credit Period Ratio [Day] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 B SK 30 27 24 18 23 25 24 CZ 34 28 29 27 27 27 30 PL 27 24 21 22 21 21 22 HU 12 24 20 15 19 20 18 C SK 39 38 35 35 37 35 38 CZ 30 29 27 27 31 30 30 PL 32 31 29 28 31 30 31 HU 25 25 23 24 26 25 25 D SK 29 33 32 32 32 33 32 CZ 16 15 17 14 13 15 15 PL 30 29 31 26 30 29 30 HU 19 21 17 17 15 15 17 E SK 34 31 28 29 26 29 30 CZ 24 24 22 22 23 24 24 PL 18 17 17 17 18 18 18 HU 29 33 32 28 29 30 32 F SK 53 52 51 46 48 50 50 CZ 41 39 36 36 36 36 36 PL 41 35 35 33 35 35 35 HU 47 47 40 38 39 40 38 G SK 41 39 36 35 36 35 36 CZ 31 31 28 28 29 30 31 PL 32 31 30 27 28 28 31 HU 20 20 17 16 16 20 20 H SK 32 32 30 29 29 30 29 CZ 51 51 48 51 49 51 51 PL 28 29 26 25 27 27 28 HU 22 23 20 19 22 23 22 I SK 31 30 28 30 30 30 30 CZ 13 14 13 8 12 13 13 PL 17 15 14 16 17 15 16 HU 18 16 16 18 19 18 16 J SK 34 35 34 31 30 33 34 CZ 22 22 21 19 21 20 20 PL 28 26 24 24 24 24 26 HU 21 18 20 17 18 17 20 K SK 33 25 25 21 20 25 22 CZ 23 17 17 15 16 17 17 PL 20 20 17 17 18 17 18 HU 9 8 9 7 10 10 10 L SK 40 36 35 36 32 35 37 CZ 16 16 13 13 15 16 16 PL 26 26 24 23 24 26 24 HU 11 12 11 9 10 11 11 M SK 40 39 35 35 32 33 35 CZ 21 22 21 19 23 20 22 PL 24 24 23 21 21 21 23 HU 18 15 14 15 15 15 15 N SK 31 30 28 31 29 30 30 CZ 20 22 20 19 16 17 16 PL 15 14 13 13 14 14 14 HU 14 12 11 11 12 11 11 Economies 2025,13, 26 33 of 36 Table A11. Cont. Credit Period Ratio [Day] Sector Country 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 O SK 12 12 11 7 6 10 12 CZ 35 27 17 57 40 35 32 PL 14 13 18 32 27 24 26 HU 18 17 22 27 30 25 24 P SK 27 20 24 23 18 20 19 CZ 14 16 13 13 9 11 15 PL 7 7 6 6 7 6 7 HU 11 18 20 19 17 18 20 Q SK 18 17 16 15 13 16 16 CZ 17 15 15 13 14 15 13 PL 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 HU 13 13 15 11 10 14 12 R SK 27 32 27 29 34 30 28 CZ 15 14 17 16 19 18 16 PL 11 11 10 8 10 11 10 HU 11 11 9 8 13 10 11 S SK 26 21 21 21 25 26 24 CZ 15 17 18 18 17 15 15 PL 8 6 6 5 8 6 6 HU 16 21 23 23 25 22 23 Source: own processing. References Adamowicz, M. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic as a change factor in the labour market in Poland. Sustainability,14(15), 9197. [CrossRef] Amoa-Gyarteng, K. (2021). Corporate financial distress: The impact of profitability, liquidity, asset productivity, activity and solvency. Journal of Accounting, Business and Management (JABM),28(2), 104–115. [CrossRef] Aqil, M., Ahmed, R. R., Vveinhardt, J., & Streimikiene, D. (2019). Factors influencing the profitability of heavy vehicle industry: A case of Pakistan. Montenegrin Journal of Economics,15(1), 61–72. [CrossRef] Atayah, O. F., Dhiaf, M. M., Najaf, K., & Frederico, G. F. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 on financial performance of logistics firms: Evidence from G–20 countries. Journal of Global Operations and Strategic Sourcing,15(2), 172–196. [CrossRef] Bacik, R., Fedorko, R., Gavurova, B., Ivankova, V., & Rigelsky, M. (2020). Differences in financial performance between various categories of hotels in the Visegrad Group countries. Journal of International Studies,13(2), 279–290. [CrossRef] Balaniuk, I. F., Shelenko, D. I., Biloshkurskyi, M. V., Povorozniuk, I. M., & Slatvinska, L. A. (2020). An integrated approach to the enterprises’ business efficiency assessment. Management Theory and Studies for Rural Business and Infrastructure Development,42(4), 486–495. [CrossRef] Bărbu t , ă-Mi s , u, N., Madaleno, M., & Ilie, V. (2019). Analysis of risk factors affecting firms’ financial performance—Support for managerial decision-making. Sustainability,11(18), 4838. [CrossRef] Bartos, V., Vochozka, M., & Skopkova, K. (2022). Assessment of financial health of service sector companies in the Central European region. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues,10(2), 375–393. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Bartosova, V., & Kral, P. (2016, September 21–23). A methodological framework of financial analysis results objectification in the Slovak Republic. BE-ci 2016: 3rd International Conference on Business and Economics (pp. 189–197), Mara, Malaysia. [CrossRef] Batrancea, L. (2021). The influence of liquidity and solvency on performance within the healthcare industry: Evidence from publicly listed companies. Mathematics,9(18), 2231. [CrossRef] Belas, J., Gavurova, B., Dvorsky, J., Cepel, M., & Durana, P. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on selected areas of a management system in SMEs. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja,35(1), 3754–3777. [CrossRef] Bizjak, J. M., Kalpathy, S. L., Mihov, V. T., & Ren, J. (2024). COVID-19 vaccinations, business activity, and firm value. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1–29. [CrossRef] Capestro, M., Rizzo, C., Kliestik, T., Peluso, A. M., & Pino, G. (2024). Enabling digital technologies adoption in industrial districts: The key role of trust and knowledge sharing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,198, 123003. [CrossRef] Chambost, I., & Praquin, N. (2021). Spotlights and shadows of financial analysis: History of the making of one of its devices: The funds-flow statement. Comptablite Controle Audit,27(3), 41–69. [CrossRef] Economies 2025,13, 26 34 of 36 Chatterjee, S., Chaudhari, R., & Shams, R. (2024). Applications of Industry 4.0 for pandemic responses and business continuity: A TOE-DCV integrated approach. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,71, 13240–13250. [CrossRef] Demirhan, H. G., & Anwar, W. (2014). Factors affecting the financial performance of the firms during the financial crisis: Evidence from Turkey. Ege Strategic Research Journal,5(2), 65–80. [CrossRef] Derco, J. (2022). The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tour operator market: The case of Slovakia. Journal of Risk and Financial Management,15(10), 466. [CrossRef] Eger, L., & Žižka, M. (2024). Industry 4.0, digital transformation and human resource management: Emerging themes and research trends in the context of the Visegrad countries. Oeconomia Copernicana,15(3), 1021–1065. [CrossRef] Farooq, U. (2018). Impact of inventory turnover on the profitability of non-financial sector firms in Pakistan. Journal of Finance and Accounting Research,1(1), 34–51. [CrossRef] Fitriani, F. (2023). Analysis of the effect of financial ratios on firm value in pharmaceutical sector companies listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange 2016–2021. Journals of Economics and Business,3(1), 43–52. [CrossRef] Gajdosikova, D., & Pavic Kramaric, T. (2023). Debt structure and its impact on financial performance: An empirical study on the enterprises operating in the Visegrad Group countries. Ekonomicko-manazerske spektrum,17(2), 107–124. Gajdosikova, D., Valaskova, K., Kliestik, T., & Machova, V. (2022). COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on challenges in the construction sector: A case study of Slovak enterprises. Mathematics,10(7), 3130. [CrossRef] Gazi, M. A. I., Nahiduzzaman, M., Harymawan, I., Masud, A. A., & Dhar, B. K. (2022). Impact of COVID-19 on financial performance and profitability of banking sector in special reference to private commercial banks: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Sustainability,14(10), 6260. [CrossRef] Goldmann, K. (2020). Use of financial analysis in operational and strategic management in practise of Polish business. Eurasian Business Perspectives,12(2), 115–125. [CrossRef] Gonchar, O. I. (2016). Increasing of business activity in management of innovative and investment potential of the company. Scientific Bulletin of Polissia,4(8), 262–267. Available online: http://ir.stu.cn.ua/123456789/15092 (accessed on 11 November 2024). Gundova, P., & Medvedova, M. (2016, May 17). Methods of financial analysis in Slovak companies as a tool for increasing of competitiveness. 8th Annual International Scientific Conference on Competition 2016 (pp. 130–143), Jihlava, Czech Republic. Harantova, V., Kalasova, A., Skrivanek Kubikova, S., Mazanec, J., & Jordova, R. (2022). The impact of mobility on shopping preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The evidence from the Slovak Republic. Mathematics,10(9), 1394. [CrossRef] Hiadlovsky, V., Rybovicova, I., & Vinczeova, M. (2016). Importance of liquidity analysis in the process of financial management of companies operating in the tourism sector in Slovakia: An empirical study. International Journal for Quality Research,10(4), 799–812. [CrossRef] Hunjra, A. I., Niazi, G. S. K., Majid, N. R., Akbar, S. W., & Akhtar, M. N. (2011). Practices of working capital policy and performance assessment financial ratios and their relationship with organization performance. World Applied Sciences Journal,12(10), 1967–1973. Hyrslova, J., Beckova, H., & Beranova, K. (2017, September 14–16). Financial analysis of urban transport companies. 11th International Days of Statistics and Economics 2017 (pp. 548–556), Prague, Czech Republic. Istok, M., & Kanderova, M. (2019). Debt/asset ratio as evidence of profit-shifting behaviour in the Slovak Republic. Technological and Economic Development of Economy,25(6), 1293–1308. [CrossRef] Jencova, S., Vasanicova, P., & Miskufova, M. (2024). Comprehensive assessment of Slovakian hospitals using financial and non-financial criteria in the COVID-19 context. Economies,12(9), 255. [CrossRef] Jones, A. S., & Godday, O. O. (2015). Accounting ratios as a veritable tool for corporate Investment decisions: A study of selected organizations in Delta State. Journal of Policy and Development Studies,9(5), 38–49. [CrossRef] Kliestik, T., Valaskova, K., Lazaroiu, G., Kovacova, M., & Vrbka, J. (2020). Remaining financially healthy and competitive: The role of financial predictors. Journal of Competitiveness,12(1), 74–92. [CrossRef] Kovacova, M., Kliestik, T., Valaskova, K., Durana, P., & Juhaszova, Z. (2019). Systematic review of variables applied in bankruptcy prediction models of Visegrad group countries. Oeconomia Copernicana,10(4), 743–772. [CrossRef] Kovalchuk, T., & Verhun, A. (2019). Improvement of the method of analysis of asset management efficiency. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies,5(5), 61–66. [CrossRef] Kramolis, J., & Dobes, K. (2020). Debt as a financial risk factor in SMEs in the Czech Republic. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy,15(1), 87–105. [CrossRef] Kristof, T., & Virag, M. (2022). What drives financial competitiveness of industrial sectors in Visegrad Four countries? Evidence by use of machine learning techniques. Journal of Competitiveness,14(4), 117–136. [CrossRef] Kwak, J. K. (2019). Analysis of inventory turnover as a performance measure in manufacturing industry. Processes,7(10), 760. [CrossRef] Lian, Z., Su, Z., & Zheng, T. (2021, December 3–5). Analysis and research on credit risk factors of listed companies in China based on CVM-MLP. 3rd International Conference on Machine Learning, Big Data and Business Intelligence (MLBDBI) (pp. 542–547), Taiyuan, China. [CrossRef] Economies 2025,13, 26 35 of 36 Linares-Mustaros, S., Farreras-Noguer, M. A., Arimany-Serrat, N., & Coenders, G. (2022). New financial ratios based on the compositional data methodology. Axioms,11(12), 694. [CrossRef] Liu, J., & Xu, Y. B. (2022). T-Friedman test: A new statistical test for multiple comparison with an adjustable conservativeness measure. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems,15, 29. [CrossRef] Lukac, J., Oleova, C., & Kudlova, Z. (2022). Factors predicting companies’ crisis in the engineering industry from the point of view of financial analysis. Plos One,17(2), e0264016. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Makoji, E. E., Orugun, F. I., & Adelakun, A. (2021). Exploration of cash flow management for enterprise’s business performance. Asian Journal of Economics Business and Accounting,21(10), 97–105. [CrossRef] Mazanec, J. (2022). Working capital management as a crucial tool for corporate performance in the transport sector: A case study of Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Mathematics,10(15), 2584. [CrossRef] Mia, M. A., Uddin, M. S., & Chowdhury, M. A. I. (2014). Evaluation of operational performance-A case study on Summit Power Limited (SPL). IOSR Journal of Business and Management,16(9), 45–51. [CrossRef] Michalkova, L., Kovacova, M., Cepel, M., & Belas, J. (2022). Insolvency prediction and corporate bankruptcy model in Visegrad group countries. Transformations in Business & Economics,21(2A), 529–548. Mijoc, I. (2024). Determinants of profitability of the IT industry in Croatia. Ekonomski Vjesnik,37(1), 45–62. [CrossRef] Moody’s. (2024). Orbis. Available online: https://www.moodys.com/web/en/us/capabilities/company-reference-data/orbis.html (accessed on 1 October 2022). Mirza, N., Rahat, B., Naqvi, B., & Rizvi, S. K. A. (2020). Impact of COVID-19 on corporate solvency and possible policy responses in the EU. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance,87, 181–190. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Papikova, L., & Papik, M. (2022). Intellectual capital and its impacts on SMEs profitability during COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Eastern European and Central Asian Research,9(3), 521–531. [CrossRef] Pech, M., Prazakova, J., & Pechova, L. (2020). The evaluation of the success rate of corporate failure prediction in a five-year period. Journal of Competitiveness,12(1), 108–124. [CrossRef] Pham, K. X., Nguyen, Q. N., & Nguyen, C. V. (2020). Effect of working capital management on the profitability of steel companies on Vietnam Stock Exchanges. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business,7(10), 741–750. [CrossRef] Podhorska, I., & Siekelova, A. (2020). Enterprises financial performance in a globalized world. SHS Web of Conferences,74, 05018. [CrossRef] Priya, P., & Sharma, C. (2023). COVID-19 related stringencies and financial market volatility: Sectoral evidence from India. Journal of Financial Economic Policy,15(1), 16–34. [CrossRef] Purwanto, A., & Bina, C. R. (2016). Analysis of Financial ratio towards earning growth in mining companies. Universal Journal of Industrial and Business Management,4(3), 81–87. [CrossRef] Rafaqat, S., & Rafaqat, S. (2020). The impact of merge and acquisition on the financial performance of the NASDAQ listed small size technology company. Economics and Finance Letters,7(2), 200–217. [CrossRef] Rahman, A., & Sharma, R. B. (2020). Cash flows and financial performance in the industrial sector of Saudi Arabia: With special reference to Insurance and Manufacturing Sectors. Investment Management & Financial Innovations,17(4), 76. [CrossRef] Rep, A. (2021). Notes to the financial statements: Current state and improvement. Business Systems Research Journal,12(2), 60–78. [CrossRef] Rezai, M., & Pourali, M. R. (2015). The relationship between working capital management components and profitability: Evidence from Iran. European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences,4(1), 342–351. Available online: https://european-science.com/ eojnss_proc/article/view/4237/1959 (accessed on 11 November 2024). Sacer, I. M., Deccan, N., & Rep, A. (2018, May 24–26). Practical problems in understanding accounting terminology used in the preparation of general purpose financial statements—Evidence from Croatia. 7th International Scientific Symposium on Economy of Eastern Croatia—Vision And Growth (pp. 1077–1085), Osijek, Croatia. Shukla, S., & Roopa, T. N. (2017). Financial behaviour of selected telecom companies in India: A comparative analysis. International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management,14(2), 141–161. [CrossRef] Simionescu, M., Wojciechowski, A., Tomczyk, A., & Rabe, M. (2021). Revised environmental Kuznets curve for V4 countries and Baltic states. Energies,14(11), 3302. [CrossRef] Susellawati, Sari, D. P., Nabella, S. D., & Fadlilah, A. H. (2022). The effect of profitability, liquidity, leverage, and activity ratios on dividend policy in manufacturing companies in the food and beverage industry sector listed on the Indonesia Stock Exchange in the 2016–2020 period. Jurnal Mantik,6(2), 1365–1375. Svabova, L., Valaskova, K., Durana, P., & Kliestik, T. (2020). Dependency analysis between various profit measures and corporate total assets for Visegrad group’s business entities. Organizacija,53(1), 80–90. [CrossRef] Svabova, L., Kramarova, K., & Chabadova, D. (2022). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the business environment in Slovakia. Economies,10(10), 244. [CrossRef] Economies 2025,13, 26 36 of 36 Svabova, L., Stefunova, D., Kramarova, K., Durica, M., & Gabrikova, B. (2024). Would it have been cheaper to let them become unemployed? Costs and benefits of First Aid intervention for companies in Slovakia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy,19(1), 139–169. [CrossRef] Tahir, M., & Anuar, M. B. A. (2016). The determinants of working capital management and firms performance of textile sector in Pakistan. Quality & Quantity,50(2), 605–618. [CrossRef] Tian, J. Y., & He, S. J. (2016, August 27–28). Financial analysis: Current situation and development trend-review and evaluation of corporate financial analysis. International Conference on Education, E-learning and Management Technology (EEMT) 2016 (pp. 77–81), Xi’an, China. [CrossRef] Valaskova, K., Lazaroiu, G., Olah, J., Siekelova, A., & Lancova, B. (2019). How capital affects business valuation: A case study of Slovakia. Central European Business Review,8(3), 1–17. [CrossRef] Valaskova, K., Kliestik, T., & Gajdosikova, D. (2021). Distinctive determinants of financial indebtedness: Evidence from Slovak and Czech enterprises. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy,16(3), 639–659. [CrossRef] Valaskova, K., Gajdosikova, D., & Belas, J. (2023a). Bankruptcy prediction in the post-pandemic period: A case study of Visegrad Group countries. Oeconomia Copernicana,14(1), 253–293. [CrossRef] Valaskova, K., Gajdosikova, D., & Lazaroiu, G. (2023b). Has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the corporate financial performance? A case study of Slovak enterprises. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy,18(4), 1133–1178. [CrossRef] Vavrek, R., Kravcakova Vozarova, I., & Kotulic, R. (2021). Evaluating the financial health of agricultural enterprises in the conditions of the Slovak Republic using bankruptcy models. Agriculture,11(3), 242. [CrossRef] Vitéz-Durgula, J., Dunay, A., Thalmeiner, G., Vajai, B., & Pataki, L. (2023). Financial analysis and survival research of the Visegrad countries’ health industries. Sustainability,15(16), 12360. [CrossRef] Welc, J. (2016). Empirical safety thresholds for liquidity and indebtedness ratios on the Polish capital market. European Financial and Accounting Journal,11(3), 37–50. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2876477 (accessed on 11 November 2024). [CrossRef] Yousaf, M., Bris, P., & Haider, I. (2021). Working capital management and firm’s profitability: Evidence from Czech certified firms from the EFQM excellence model. Cogent Economics & Finance,9(1), 1–16. [CrossRef] Zagita, T., Novalia, N., & Suhada, S. (2024). Analysis of solvency ratio and activity ratio in the financial performance of Pt Bukit Asam Tbk. Jemasi: Jurnal Ekonomi Manajemen Dan Akuntansi,20(1), 28–38. [CrossRef] Zisoudis, N., Karelakis, C., Theodossiou, C., & Loizou, E. (2020). Financial analysis of major retail chains within a turbulent economic environment. Studies in Business and Economics,15(3), 208–222. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.