Keywords

Micro and Small Enterprises, Stakeholder Orientation, Manufacturing, and Enterprise Performance.

Background of the Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of stakeholder orientation on enterprise performance. While this business orientation has important implications for an enterprise’s strategy, there are limited empirical studies on the impact of these constructs on an enterprises performance within the context of a developing country such as Ethiopia. Nevertheless, the importance of a stakeholder orientation is pervasive through all areas of the economy and includes the small business sector (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005).

The small business sector contributes significantly to job creation, social stability and economic welfare across the globe. Indeed, the growth and development of the micro and small enterprise sector is acknowledged by most interest groups and policy makers as being of critical importance in addressing the serious problems of unemployment and poverty in developed countries. Micro and small enterprise have introduced innovative products and services, generated new jobs, opened new markets and in the process have assisted the economy into regaining its competitive edge in the global economy. Similarly, small business sector accounts for the bulk of the country’s business entities.

The importance of a stakeholder orientation and entrepreneurial orientation is pervasive through all areas of the economy and includes the small business sector (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2005). Defines a stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of a company’s objectives. Argues that there are three dimensions of the stakeholders and also all are intertwined and mutually supportive. Likewise, clarify stakeholder theory extends the definition of stakeholders to include not only customers and competitors, but also employees and shareholders. In other words, stakeholder orientation can thus be viewed as a multidimensional construct consisting of the four pillars, customer orientation, competitor orientation, employee orientation and owner-manager interest. These four orientations have been identified by (Yau et al., 2007) as crucial primary stakeholders for business to survive.

Statement of the Problems

Recent studies show that MSE in Ethiopia are, faced up to with several factors that affect the performance of MSE. According to the major factors include financial problem, lack of qualified employees, lack of proper financial records, marketing problem, and lack of work premises. Besides, environmental factors affect the business’ which includes social, economic, cultural, political, legal and technological factors. In addition, there are also personal attitude or internal factors which affect the performance of MSE, Which are related to the persons individual attitude, training and technical know-how (Werotew, 2010). Generally there are external and internal factors which are still affecting the performance of MSE.

The study conducted by disclose that the extra explanatory factors such as , various measures of financial constraints and formality of business (firms operates with business registration or license) in addition to initial size, age location, sector, demographic character and human capital of the owner. Also addressed the role of micro finance in addressing financial needs of women engaged in micro and small enterprise. However, there was not found a research on this micro and small enterprise in Ethiopia related to stake holder orientation and business performance. Furthermore, the majority of stakeholder orientations on small business studies have been conducted in developed countries.

Emanated to the study area, Bahir Dar City administration 2017/18 the (TVED) office report indicated that, the total number of micro and small enterprise are 4892,from this 361 (7.4%)enterprises are construction, 1346 (27.5%)enterprises are service, 2714enterprisesare trade, 96 (2%)enterprises are urban agriculture and 375 (7.6%) enterprises are manufacturing sectors. As indicated in the MSE strategy (2011), there are two forms of growth level of MSEs. The first is the transition from micro to small and from small to medium, the second is a step to be competent within the level they have, startup to growth and then to maturity. With regard to this issue, TVED office 2017/18 report, From the total 375 (7.6%) of manufacturing enterprises more of the enterprise is micro 270 (72%) and the remaining is a small 105 (28%). when we see their percentage share in reference to their growth life cycle, of micro and small manufacturing enterprises (375) available in Bahir Dar city administration, 235 (62.6 %) are at startup level, 89(23.7 %) are at growth level and only 51 (13.6 %) are found at maturity level. This shows that the performance of the micro enterprise is less and based on this fact the transformed enterprise to the next stage was limited in number.

Research Objectives

Research objectives are tools or instruments that serve as a milestone for research design and control.

The main objective of this research was to investigate the effect of stakeholder orientation on the performance of micro & small manufacturing enterprises in Bahir Dar city administration.

Research Hypotheses

H1: There is a positive relationship between customer orientation and the performance of Micro & small manufacturing enterprises.

H2: There is a positive relationship between competitor orientation and the Performance of
micro & small manufacturing enterprises.

H3: There is a positive relationship between employee orientation and the performance of Micro & small manufacturing enterprises.

H4: There is a positive relationship between owner manager interest and the performance of Micro & small manufacturing enterprises.

Review of Related Literature

MSEs are defined in a range of ways using different factors like; number of employees, volume of sales, and the capital value of the business. Although many countries around the globe seem to use common factors in their definitions, the degree of emphasis and measures used to differ quite considerably. To this end, different governments and writers in MSEs’ definition differ considerably. This difference is influenced largely by, the industry within which the MSE is competing and population and stage of a country’s economic development.

A definition of MSEs in the industrialized world would differ from how MSEs are defined in the emerging economies. An enterprise categorized as a micro enterprise in the USA may be treated as medium enterprise in Africa or somewhere in Asia for the fact that the definition of MSE is relative to economic development. The annual turnover figures also differ from country to country, depending among other factors on population size and stage of economic development. From this we can learn that there is no common definition of MSEs and that the definitions vary from country to country depending largely on the size of the economy, the levels of development, culture and population size of a country involved.

Based on both national and international experiences the government of Ethiopia defines micro enterprises which involved in manufacturing, construction and mining as an enterprise that operates with a maximum of 5 people (including the owner) and/or own up to ETB100,000 total assets. The total equity aspect is limited to a maximum of ETB 50,000 if the micro enterprises are engaged in the service sector, including retailer, transport, hotel and Tourism, ICT and maintenance service. Likewise, the Ethiopian government classifies enterprises that have 6 to 30 employees (including the owner) and/corporate with a total asset that is beyond the micro enterprises in the industry segment but not exceeding ETB 1.5million as small enterprises.

On the other hand the definition puts enterprises engaged in the service sector like in the retail, transport, hotel and Tourism, ICT and maintenance under small enterprise once their capital exceeds ETB 50,000 until it reaches ETB 500,000 and/or employing the same 6-30 employees as the enterprises operating under the industry sector. Over all the countries definitions sides the total asset yardstick in times of ambiguity in Table 1.

Table 1 Definition of MSEs
Enterprise	Sector	Employees	Total asset
Micro enterprise	Industry	<5	<100,000 ($6000 or €4500)
	Service	<5	<50,000($3000 or €2200)
Small enterprise	Industry	6-30	<Birr 1.5 million ($9000 or €70000)
	Service	6-30	<Birr 500,000($30000 or €23000)

Previous studies reveal that market orientation affects firm performance (Narver & Slater, 1990); (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993); (Langerak, 2001). The theoretical basis for this expected link was discussed by Narver & Slater (1990) who argue that in a competitive market, firms must be highly cognizant and responsive to the needs of customers. If, however, the enterprise is not responsive to the needs of customers, competitors will develop products more accommodating of those needs and capture their support. Customer orientation and competitor orientation are components of stakeholder orientation. Most of the empirical studies on stakeholder orientation have sought to investigate the main effects of stakeholder components on business performance and the interaction that results from the different components (Luk et al., 2005),and (Yau et al., 2007). Luk et al. (2005) study investigated the interaction effects that result from different combinations of the components of stakeholder orientation. When a firm supports all orientations simultaneously, there is a high probability that the firm will perform better.

Conceptual Framework

Figure1 illustrates the conceptual framework for the influence of stakeholder orientation dimension on performance of micro and small manufacturing enterprise.

The conceptual framework represents a model ascertaining the relative importance of the know antecedents of performance of micro and small business. Most researchers in their literatures mentioned that customer orientation, competitors’ orientation, employees’ orientation and owners- manager interest orientation are the factors that have connection with the performance of micro and small manufacturing enterprise.

Materials and Methodology

The research approach of this study was both quantitative and qualitative data (mixed research approach). A Mixed approach is used for the purpose of achieving complete answers to a research objective, that is, gaps left by the quantitative approach can be filled by the qualitative one. In order to achieve the objectives of this study, the descriptive and correlational study designs were used for this study. The Population can be defined as all people or items (unit of analysis) with the characteristics that one wishes to study. Accordingly, this study was conducted in Bahir Dar city administration and the target populations for this particular study comprises of micro and small manufacturing enterprises under the support of TVED office having more than one year business life and those formally registered until 2017 and still existing in 6 sub-cities of Bahir Dar city administration. In addition, the director of industry extension service in regional TVED office and Bahir Dar city administration TVED office were interviewed. The organized list of micro and small manufacturing enterprises in each sub-city was obtained from Bahir Dar city TVED office department.

The samples of respondents was selected from sampling frame using simple random sampling technique from each strata of micro and small manufacturing enterprises operating in the sub-city. The samples selected from the various strata are then combined in to a single sample. In proportionate stratified sampling, the number of elements allocated to the various strata is proportional to the representation of the strata in the target population. That is, the size of the sample drawn from each stratum is proportional to the relative size of that stratum in the target population Yang (2006).

Yamane (1967) provides a simplified formula to calculate sample sizes. This formula has used to the number of population size under study is finite shows in Table 2.

Table 2 Strata, Size of Strata and Proportionate Sample   Sizes of Strata
No	List of sub cities	Total MSEs population	Sample                 size taken from each sub-city	Percent (%)
1	Hidar- 11	83	3 *194=43 75	22.16%
2	Ginbot 20	57	57 * 194 =29 375	14.94%
3	Belay Zeleke	32	32 * 194 =16 375	8.25%
4	Tana	84	84 * 194 =44 375	22.68%
5	Fasilo	52	52 * 194 =27 375	13.92%
6	Gish abay	67	67 * 194 =35 375	18 .04%
	Subtotal	375	194	100%

Where:

➢ n is the sample size,

➢ N is the total number population size is existing manufacturing enterprises = 375

➢ e is the level of precision (allowable error commonly 5% = 0.05)

The main primary data was collected mainly from respondents through the use of a closed ended structured questionnaire. This research has some characteristics of qualitative research. Because it triangulated the respondent response by using semi structured interviewee the head of regional TVED bureau and Bahir Dar city administration TVED office head perception on the effect of stakeholder orientation on the performance of micro and small manufacturing enterprise.

The major sources of primary data were micro and small enterprise owners/managers. Primary data were collect through survey questionnaire and semi structured interview. Questionnaires were translated into Amharic because the question in the English language may not produce the required response and assume to limit their participation in the survey.

The necessary Secondary data to enrich the study document with required evidence was captured from different sources, such sources as published and unpublished documents from TVED office, regional technical and vocational enterprise Development Bureau, annual reports, journals, books, different research papers, and internet. The information obtained using both were integrated during data presentation and analysis phase.

From the above table 3, the alpha values of all variables are well above 0.7. It is seen that the reliability value was estimated to be α = 0.845- 0.947 between the scale. According to Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value varies from 0 to 1 but a satisfactory value is required to be higher than 0.7 for the scale to be reliable/acceptable (Cronbach, 1951), and (Nunnally, 1967). Then, it can be safely assumed that the scales used by the research are highly reliable for data analysis.

Table 3 Results of Reliability Test
No	Factors	Cronbach's Alpha	No of Items
1	Customer orientation	0.860	6
2	Competitor orientation	0.947	5
3	Employee orientation	0.917	5
4	Owner-manager interest	0.845	4
5	Perceived enterprise performance	0.881	7

The Model of equations used to answer the research objectives is a linear function, expressed as follows:

Where:

β0 : Constant (The intercept term- constant which would be equal to the mean if all slope Coefficients are 0).

β1 : Slope of a line (Magnitude of the coefficients of the variables)is the coefficients,

β2 : Associated with each independent variable which measures the change in the mean value of Y, per unit change in their respective independent variables.

Xi : Independents

variables

X1= Customer Orientation,

X2=Competitor Orientation,

X3=Employees Orientation,

X4=Owner-manager Interest Orientation.

Y : Dependent Variable= Performance of micro and small manufacturing Enterprise

ε i : Error term

Therefore, this model was used to see the relationship between the four explanatory variables (Independent variables) with the performance of micro and small manufacturing enterprise (dependent variable) shows in Table 4&5.

Table 4 Multi Co Linearity Diagnosis
No	Variables	Co linearity Statistics
	Independent variable	Tolerance	VIF
1	Customer orientation	0.438	2.281
2	Competitor orientation	0.375	2.668
3	Employee orientation	0.435	2.301
4	Owner-manager interest	0.559	1.788
a. Dependent variable; Enterprise performance

Table 5 The Pearson’s Correlations
		Customer	Competitor	Employee	Owner Manager Interest	Enter prise Perfor mance
Customer	Pearson Correlation	1
	Sig. (2 tailed)
Competitor	Pearson Correlation	0.718**	1
	Sig. (2 tailed)	0.000
Employee	Pearson Correlation	0.633**	0.696**	1
	Sig.(2tailed)	0.000	0.000
Owner manager interest	Pearson Correlation	0.557**	0.588**	0.612**	1
	Sig.(2tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000
Enterprise Performance	Pearson Correlation	0.678**	0.694**	0.657**	0.635**	1
	Sig.(2tailed)	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000
• ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
• Number of Respondents 169

Findings

Hypotheses Testing Using Multiple Linear Regressions

Based on the multiple linear Regressions result the researcher has proved their statistical significance and decided on accepting and rejecting the already developed hypothesis shows in Table 6,7,8. Totally, there were four (4) hypotheses developed in relation to the considered explanatory variables in the regression analysis and the hypothesis testing result is stated as follows:

Table 6 Model Summery
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate	Change Statistics					Durbin Watson
					R Square Change	F Change	df 1	df2	Sig. F Change
1	0.783a	0.613	0.603	0.65514	0.613	64.853	4	164	0.000	2.11
	a. Predictors: (Constant), Owner Manager, Customer, Employee, Competitors
	b. Dependent Variable: Enterprise Performance

Table 7 Regression Coefficienta
Model	(Constant)	Unstandardize d Coefficients		Standar dized Coeffici ents			95.0% Confidence Interval for B
		B	Std. Error	Beta	T	Sig.	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
		0.456	0.153		2.980	0.003	0.154	0.758
1	Customer	0.233	0.067	0.255	3.472	0.001	0.101	0.366
	Competitors	0.223	0.072	0.246	3.099	0.002	0.081	0.366
	Employee	0.157	0.065	0.179	2.423	0.016	0.029	0.285
	Owner Manager Interest	0.242	0.066	0.239	3.678	0.000	0.112	0.371
a. Dependent Variable: Enterprise Performance

Table 8 T-Calculated
Coefficients a
Model		t	Sig.
	(Constant)	2.980	.003
	Customer	3.472	.001
1	Competitors	3.099	.002
	Employee	2.423	.016
	Owner Manager Interest	3.678	.000
a. Dependent Variable: Enterprise Performance

The study has used both descriptive and inferential statistical analysis methods. In the descriptive analysis the responses of micro and small manufacturing enterprise owners operating businesses for each variable were analyzed and the grand mean value of customer orientation was 2.66 and grand standard deviation of customer orientation was1.380 reflecting that the majority of the respondents 59.76% showed their disagreement with all variables asked in positive, that is, the asked variables negatively influence the performance of manufacturing MSE.

The study depicted competitors orientation for the respondents was found to have a grand mean of 2.698 and grand standard deviation of 1.3442 showing that out of 169 respondents, the majority, 59.17 % of the enterprise owners responded disagree with all variables asked in positive, that is, the asked variables negatively influence the performance of manufacturing MSE.

The grand mean and grand standard deviation of employee orientation was 2.708 and 1.3748 respectively, which is a higher grand mean score of another independent variable. The majority, 58.6 % of the enterprise owners’ responded disagrees with all variables asked in positive, and that is, the asked variables negatively influence the performance of the manufacturing MSE.

The responses of the owner managers about owner manager interest were found to have a grand mean of 2.647 and grand standard deviation of 1.3175 which is a lower grand means score of another independent variable. The majority, 61.5 % of the enterprise owner’s responded disagrees with all variables asked in positive, that is, the asked variables negatively influence the performance of the manufacturing MSE.

In the inferential statistical analysis of the study, Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient and regression analyses were used. The result revealed that the correlation coefficient for each predictor variables in relation to the dependent variable is: customer orientation (r =0.678, p<0.05); competitor’s orientation (r = 0.694, p<0.05); employee orientations (r =0.657, p<0.05); owner manager interest(r = 0.635, p<0.05) indicating that there is strong and positive correlation between explanatory variables and the outcome single variable, manufacturing MSEs performance.

From the multiple linear regression analysis, a significant regression model was found (F = 64.853, p<0.000), with an R-square (R²) of 0.613 and its adjusted R2 of 0.603.This indicates that the regression model indicates that the independent variables accounted for 60.3% of the variations of MSE performance. The study revealed that all the four hypothesized factors were found significantly and positively influencing the MSE performance operating in Bahir Dar city administration. The comparative intensity of the four hypothesized factors influencing the enterprise performance was examined and the result revealed that owner manager interest factors were the most influencing predictor variable for manufacturing MSE performance followed by customer orientation, competitor orientation, and employee orientation factors. Generally, Stakeholder orientations have significant influence micro and small manufacturing enterprise performance at a significance level of 0.05.

Conclusion

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of stakeholder orientation on the performance of micro and small manufacturing enterprise in case of Bahir Dar city administration. The results confirm that stakeholder orientation, namely customer orientation, and competitor orientation, employee orientation, and owner manager interest as having a positive and significant effect on the performance of micro and small manufacturing enterprise. Therefore, the implication is that micro and small manufacturing enterprise in Bahir Dar city administration could improve their performance through the adoption of stakeholder orientation.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are worth considering; it is recommended that, manufacturing MSEs in Bahir Dar city administration must take stakeholder engagements seriously as it plays an important role in how well their performance will increase when it comes to customer orientation, competitor orientation, employee orientation and owner manager interest. Ignoring any of these orientations may result in substantial loss in enterprise performance.

• It is recommended that owners /managers/ of micro and small manufacturing enterprise should constantly make an effort to satisfy the needs and wants of customers by delivering superior value for them. This can be achieved by gathering information about the wants and needs of customers. It is also recommended that the owners / managers/ of enterprise gives more emphasis on customer orientation to enable the whole enterprise to maximize customer value through allocation and development of strategies for an enterprise /marketing concept/ and operationalize an organizational philosophy concerned with relationship marketing. In addition, this study recommends, the owner manager gives more attention to customer analysis which consists of a deliberate emphasis on understanding customer needs & wants, and also an emphasis on customer responsiveness which entails responding to the information received about customer needs and preferences to increase the performance of micro and small manufacturing enterprises.

• It is recommended that the owners - managers of the enterprise should understand the strengths, weaknesses, capabilities and strategies of competitors as well as being responsive to the actions of competitors and offering should be better than the competitors so as to retain customer base and compete effectively in the marketplace. To accomplish this, enterprises manager should be able to predict, monitor, understand and neutralize the activities of their competitors. It is also recommended that owners/managers of micro and small manufacturing enterprise should comprehend the nature of competitors, their technologies, and products that customers perceive as alternative businesses to position themselves well in the marketplace so that they will not be overtaken by their rivals.

• The study recommends, owners/managers of the enterprises should invest time and resources in staff development potentially leading to superior skills and knowledge in support of customer service. It is also recommended that the owner-managers of an enterprise understand employees as partners in the effort of the firm to accomplish organizational success, rather than as a cost to the enterprise. Enterprise owner- managers should play a critical role in developing and implementing the organizational culture, especially in risky and uncertain conditions. It is recommended that owner-manager emphasis on the relationship within employees to provide a means of accommodating the interests of employees while achieving firm objectives because satisfied employees have greater morale and job motivation and work harder. Consequently, this brings about a higher level of organizational efficiency and effectiveness as opposed to dissatisfying employees.

• The study reveals that owner-manager interest factors were among the very strong influential factors that affect the enterprise performance of MSEs. It is recommended that an owner-manager of the enterprise should accommodate the interests of all parties or owners or members with a financial interest in the business and formulate & implement profit making strategies. The study also recommends, owner manager has a regular meeting, regularly communicate, and the strategic direction of the enterprise should be clear to all partners, parties or members that have a financial interest in the business.

• Government should establish funds that can easily be accessed by MSEs, so that the enterprise can use it to buy the necessary innovative equipment needed to improve upon their performances. Finally, it is recommended that micro and small enterprise development Bureau, as an institution that deals directly with MSEs, should sensitize them about the importance of employing stakeholder orientation practices in their business operations.

References

Abrams, F. (1954). Management responsibilities in a complex world, In T.H. Carroll (Ed.) Business education for competence and responsibility, Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.

Akande, O.O. (2011). Accounting skill as a performance factor for small businesses in Nigeria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 2(5), 372-378.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Alasadi, R., & Abdelrahim, A. (2007). Critical analysis and modeling of small business Performance. Journal of Asia Entrepreneurship and Sustainability, 3(2), 1-22.

Google Scholar

Aliaga, M., & Gunderson, B. (2002), Interactive Statistics, [Thousand Oaks]: Sage publications.

Berman, S.L., Wicks, A.C., Kotha, S., & Jones, T.M. (1999). Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 488-506.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Getnet, A.Z. (2014). Financial inclusion, regulation and inclusive growth in Ethiopia working paper 408.

Jaworski, B.J., & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53-70.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Langerak, F. (2001). Effects of market orientation on the behaviors of salespersons and purchasers, channel relationships, and performance of manufacturers. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18(3), 221-234.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Luk, C.K., Cohn, R., Muth, R., Patil, H., Klauser, A., Lowney, G., & Hazelwood, K. (2005). Pin: building customized program analysis tools with dynamic instrumentation. Acm Sigplan Notices, 40(6), 190-200.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Narver, J.C., & Slater, S.F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35.

Google Scholar

Voss, Z.G., Moorman, C., & Voss, G.B. (2005). An empirical examination of the complex relationships between entrepreneurial orientation and stakeholder support. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 1132-1150.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Waddock, S.A., & Graves, S.B. (1997a). The corporate social performance financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303.

Waddock, Sandra A., & Samuel B, Graves, (1997b). Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations: Are they synonymous? Business and Society, 36, 250-279.

Webster, Frederick E. (1992). The changing role of marketing in the corporation. Journal of Marketing, 56(10), 1-17.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Wei, Li-Qunand Chung-Ming Lau. (2008). The impact of market orientation & strategic hrm on firm performance the case of Chinese enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6),980-995.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Welman, J.C., & Kruger, S.J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and administrative sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Werotew, B.A. (2010). Entrepreneurship; An engine for sustainable growth development, prosperity and good governance, genius training and consultancy service, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.

Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation and small business performance: a configurationally approach. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(1), 71-91.

Williamson, Oliver E. (1979). Transaction-cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, (2nd Edition). New York: Harper and Row.

Yang, J.C. (2006). The efficiency of SMEs in the global market: Measuring the Korean performance. Journal of Policy Modeling, 28(8), 861-876.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Yau, H.M.O., Luk, C.L., Oliver, H.M., Tse, C.B.A., Sin, Y.M., & Chow, P.M.R. (2007). Developing A scale for stakeholder orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 41 (11/12),1306-1327.

Google Scholar

Zewede & Associate (2002). Job, Gender and Small Enterprise in Africa Preliminary Report: Women Enterprise Development in Ethiopia.ILO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Received: 07-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. AEJ-23-13171; Editor assigned: 08-Feb-2023, PreQC No. AEJ-23-13171(PQ); Reviewed: 20-Feb-2023, QC No. AEJ- 23-13171; Revised: 22-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. AEJ-23-13171(R); Published: 25-Feb-2023