Family enterprises in Polish consumers’ mindset in the light of international tendencies

• Authors: Bednarz Joanna , Nikodemska-Wołowik Anna M.
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Aim/purpose – The main aim of the paper is to fill in the gap in the existing literature as well as to propose a set of specific family enterprises’ (FE) attributes concerning certain socioeconomic conditions in Poland. The objectives of the article are interrelated with two theses. H1 assumes that in current literature there is a little attention paid to the demand side of the market, particularly to the individual consumers (including young buyers) and their attitudes toward FEs. H2 indicates that the perception of Polish FEs changes considerably reflecting the international trends. Design/methodology/approach – The authors studied a consolidated profound review of recent international and Polish publications on FEs. The expert interviews and in-depth individual interviews were conducted. Both empirical studies brought a preliminary insight into overall consumer perception of the FEs in Poland. Findings – For several years Polish buyers have been dynamically changing their mindset, breaking the stereotype of FEs’ owners. Nowadays, tradition and quality are two attributes which are associated closely with Polish FEs. Customers indicate that FEs are trustworthy, responsible, solid and dependable. They also highlight the ethnocentric attitude toward these companies – Polishness. All these attributes are evidently appreciated. FEs are correlated with traditional industries and products, especially with groceries, cosmetics, clothes, shoes, jewelry, furniture, windows and doors. Research implications/limitations – The identity of FEs is not always communicated properly. Consumers often cannot ascertain a provenance of their offer as many FEs do not emphasize their family identity. Additionally, on the Polish market, consumers are occasionally misled considering the family ownership of a business. Originality/value/contribution – The studies indicate a set of attributes typical of Polish FEs underpinning their strong identity which should be explicitly conveyed to the public, with special regard to young consumers.

Keywords

EN

Consumer behavior; Family enterprise (FE); Polish market

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Katowicach
• Journal: Journal of Economics and Management
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 29
• Pages: 5-22

Contributors

author

Bednarz Joanna

• Institute of International Business. Faculty of Economics. University of Gdansk

author

Nikodemska-Wołowik Anna M.

• Institute of International Business. Faculty of Economics. University of Gdansk

References

• Adler P.S., Kwon S.W. (2002): Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. ”Academy of Management Review”, Vol. 27(1), pp. 17-40, DOI: 10.5465/AMR.2002.5922314.
• Awdziej M., Tkaczyk J., Włodarek D. (2016): Are elderly consumer more ethnocentric? Attitudes towards Polish and ‘foreign’ food products. “Journal of Economics and Management”, Vol. 23(1), pp. 91-107, DOI: 10.22367/jem.
• Bednarz J. (2013): Konkurencyjność polskich przedsiębiorstw na rynkach europejskich na przykładzie wybranych branż. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, Gdańsk.
• Braun M., Sharma A. (2007): Should the CEO also be chair of the board? An empirical examination of family controlled public firms. “Family Business Review”, Vol. 20(2), pp. 111-126, DOI/pdf/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00090.x.
• Dana L.P., Ramadi V., ed. (2015): Family businesses in transition economies management, succession and internationalization. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg – New York – Dordrecht – London, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-14209-8.
• Dessi C., Ng W., Floris M., Cabras S. (2014): How small family-owned businesses may compete with retail superstores. Tacit knowledge and perceptive concordance among owner-managers and customers. “Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development”, Vol. 21(4), pp. 668-689, DOI: doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-02-2014-0025.
• Dyer W.G. (2006): Examining the “family effect” on firm performance. “Family Business Review”, Vol. 19(4), pp. 253-273, DOI: doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00074.x.
• Edelman Trust Barometer (2014): screen 19. www.edelman.com/insights/intellectualproperty/2014-edelman-trust-barometer/trust-around-the-world/ (access: 6.02.2017).
• EY and Kennesaw State University’s Cox Family Enterprise Center (2015): Staying power: How do family businesses create lasting success? Global Survey of the World’s Largest Family Businesses.
• Family Businesses Foundation (2016): Poles on family businesses 2016. Businesses with potential. https://ffr.pl/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Polacy_o_firmach_rodzinnych_2016_-_Firmy_z_przysz%C5%82os%CC%81cia%CC%A8.pdf (acces: 20.02.2017).
• Gils A. van, Dibrell C., Neubaum D.O., Craig J.B. (2014): Social issues in the family enterprise. “Family Business Review”, Vol. 27(3), pp. 193-205, DOI: 10.1177/0894486514542398.
• GUS (2015): Wartości i zaufanie społeczne w Polsce w 2015 r. Warszawa, 20.11, http://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/warunki-zycia/dochody-wydatki-i-warunkizycia-ludnosci/wartosci-i-zaufanie-spoleczne-w-polsce-w-2015-r-,21,1.html (access: 17.03.2017).
• Hauswald H., Hack A. (2013): Impact of family control/influence on stakeholders’ perceptions of benevolence. “Family Business Review”, Vol. 26(4), pp. 356-373, DOI: 10.1177/0894486513477453.
• Hobsbawm E., Ranger T. (2012): The invention of tradition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Ignatowski G. (2016): Familizm i nepotyzm. Rodzina w firmach rodzinnych. In: Firmy rodzinne – wyzwania współczesności. Ed. B. Piasecki, A. Marjański. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, t. XVII(6), cz. III, Społeczna Akademia Nauk, Łódź, pp. 181-191.
• Koładkiewicz I., Wojtyra M. (2016): Firmy rodzinne w Polsce. Co już wiemy, a czego jeszcze chcielibyśmy się dowiedzieć? Przegląd wyników badań. In: Firmy rodzinne – wyzwania współczesności. Ed. Ł. Sułkowski, A. Marjański. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, t. XVII(6), cz. II, Społeczna Akademia Nauk, Łódź, pp.121-145.
• KPMG and The Consumer Goods Forum (2015): Consumer markets. To stand still is to fall behind. 2015 global consumer executive top of mind survey. Amstelveen.
• Lee J. (2006): Family firm performance: Further evidence. “Family Business Review”, Vol. 19(2), pp. 103-114, DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2006.00060.x.
• Leszczewska K. (2012): Wyróżnianie rodzinności jako specyficznej cechy prowadzenia działalności gospodarczej. In: Firmy rodzinne – współczesne wyzwania przedsiębiorczości rodzinnej. Kierunki i strategie rozwoju. Ed. Ł. Sułkowski. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, t. XIII(7), Społeczna Akademia Nauk, Łódź, p. 102.
• Lewandowska A., Hadryś-Nowak A. (2013): Wpływ czynników rodzinności na postrzeganie przedsiębiorstwa rodzinnego przez interesariuszy zewnętrznych w świetle badań własnych. In: Firmy rodzinne – wyzwania globalne i lokalne. Ed. A. Marjański. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, t. XIV(6), Społeczna Akademia Nauk, Łódź, pp. 178-181.
• Micelotta E., Raynard M. (2011): Concealing or revealing the family? Identity management strategies in family firms. “Family Business Review”, Vol. 24(3), pp. 197-216, DOI: 10.1177/0894486511407321.
• Nahapiet J., Ghoshal S. (1998): Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. ”Academy of Management Review”, Vol. 23(2), pp. 242-266, DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1998.533225.
• Nikodemska-Wolowik A.M., ed. (2015): Report: Poles opinion on family businesses 2015. The end of a business shark stereotype. Family Business Foundation, Poznań.
• Open Research (2016): Patriotyzm konsumencki Polaków? Analiza zjawiska. Kwiecień, Warszawa.
• Paliszkiewicz J.O. (2011): Trust management: Literature review. “Management”, Vol. 6(4), pp. 315-331.
• Popczyk W. (2011): Zarządzanie zaufaniem jako warunek utrzymania przewagi konkurencyjnej przez firmy rodzinne nad ich odpowiednikami nierodzinnymi. In: Firmy rodzinne – determinanty funkcjonowania i rozwoju. Zarządzanie rozwojem i zmianą. Ed. A. Marjański. Przedsiębiorczość i Zarządzanie, t. XII(7), Społeczna Akademia Nauk, Łódź, pp. 9-18.
• Potvin P., Hasni A. (2014): Interest, motivation and attitude towards science and technology at K-12 levels: A systematic review of 12 years of educational research. “Studies in Science Education”, Vol. 50(1), pp. 85-129, DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2014.881626.
• Pounder P. (2015): Family business insights: An overview of the literature. “Journal of Family Business Management”, Vol. 5(1), pp. 116-127, DOI: 10.1108/JFBM-10-2014-0023.
• Sowa I., Burgiel A. (2009): Determinants of young consumers’ behaviour on the markets of Central and Eastern Europe. “Journal of Economics and Management”, Vol. 6, pp. 141-159, DOI: 10.22367/jem.
• Sundaramurthy Ch. (2008): Sustaining trust within family business. “Family Business Review”, Vol. XXI(1), pp. 89-98, DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6248.2007.00110.x.
• Szul E. (2013): Działalność firm rodzinnych w ocenie społecznej. „Zarządzanie i Finanse”, vol. 11(1/4), pp. 536-534.
• TNS Polska i Polskie Towarzystwo Badaczy Rynku i Opinii (2016): Moda na polskość. Warszawa.
• The Intuito Peartree Report (2010): Australian consumer attitudes to family business. Intuito Market Research, Peartree Marketing, Family Business Australia, August, https://www.peartree.com.au/services/family-business-brand-strategy/ (access: 15.02.2017).
• Zachary M.A., McKenny A., Short J.C., Tyge Payne G. (2011): Business and market orientation: Construct validation and comparative analysis. “Family Business Review”, Vol. 24(3), pp. 233-251, DOI: 10.1177/0894486510396871.
• Zawadka M., Hoffmann U. (2012): Moja historia, moja firma. Portrety polskich przedsiębiorców rodzinnych. Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości, Inicjatywa Firm Rodzinnych, Warszawa.
• Zellweger T.M., Kimberly A., Eddleston K.A., Kellermanns F. (2010): Exploring the concept of familiness: Introducing family firm identity. “Journal of Family Business Strategy”, Vol. 1(1), pp. 54-63, DOI:10.1016/j.jfbs.2009.12.003.

Identifiers

ISSN

1732-1948