## 4 Results
### Differences by Company Size
The results of the statistical test that revealed significant differences in terms of perceived importance are presented in Table 4.  
Respondents from small companies place more importance on having a system for reporting entries without PPEs and providing training on how to handle unforeseen situations to prevent the accident that occurred at the Compeso company. In contrast, respondents from medium-large companies prioritize investigating the causes of an accident, both in general and to prevent the same accident from recurring at the Compeso company. The results of the statistical test that revealed significant differences in terms of the level of implementation are presented in Table 5. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**MONITOR**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Importance Level**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Medium-Large**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Small Companies**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} \\  & **Companies** & & \\ \hline Very Important & 13.23\% & 19.48\% & 32.70\% \\ Important & 3.78\% & 2.03\% & 5.81\% \\ Not Very Important & 5.52\% & 10.76\% & 16.28\% \\ Not Important At & & & \\ All & 17.88\% & 27.33\% & 45.20\% \\
**Total** & 40.41\% & 59.59\% & 100.00\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**RESPOND**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Importance Level**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Medium-Large**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Small Companies**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} \\  & **Companies** & & \\ \hline Very Important & 7.32\% & 15.63\% & 22.95\% \\ Important & 1.77\% & 1.02\% & 2.79\% \\ Not Very Important & 2.50\% & 5.20\% & 7.7\% \\ Not Important At & & & \\ All & 28.82\% & 37.74\% & 66.56\% \\
**Total** & 40.41\% & 59.59\% & 100.00\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**ANTICIPATE**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Importance Level**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Medium-Large**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Small Companies**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} \\  & **Companies** & & \\ \hline Very Important & 11.76\% & 18.74\% & 30.51\% \\ Important & 1.50\% & 1.62\% & 3.12\% \\ Not Very Important & 3.20\% & 6.23\% & 9.43\% \\ Not Important At & & & \\ All & 23.95\% & 33.00\% & 56.95\% \\
**Total** & 40.41\% & 59.59\% & 100.00\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**LEARN**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Importance Level**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Medium-Large**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Small Companies**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} \\  & **Companies** & & \\ \hline Very Important & 10.39\% & 17.81\% & 28.20\% \\ Important & 1.31\% & 1.09\% & 2.40\% \\ Not Very Important & 3.27\% & 5.89\% & 9.16\% \\ Not Important At & & & \\ All & 25.44\% & 34.81\% & 60.25\% \\
**Total** & 40.41\% & 59.59\% & 100.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Overview of the technical measures associated with the four RE dimensions and distinguishing between different enterprise sizes—near-miss scenario. Respondents from medium-large companies reported a higher level of implementation of systems to update the risk assessment related to new technologies, evaluate risks arising from extraordinary changes in the environment where the technology is present, and communicate such changes to the staff. Furthermore, they reported having more frequently conducted investigations into the causes of both accidents and near-miss scenarios and implemented actions aimed at increasing the level of knowledge about technological equipment, both in relation to accidents and near-miss scenarios.