NEGOTIA - Babeș-Bolyai Universitystudia.ubbcluj.ro/download/pdf/1117.pdfAssoc. Prof. dr. OANA...

NEGOTIA3/2017

STUDIAUNIVERSITATISBABEŞ‐BOLYAI

NEGOTIA

3/2017September

EDITORIALBOARDOFSTUDIAUNIVERSITATISBABEŞ‐BOLYAINEGOTIA

EDITOR‐IN‐CHIEF:Assoc.Prof.IOANALINNISTOR,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaEXECUTIVEEDITOR:Prof.dr.CORNELIAPOP,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaCO‐EXECUTIVEEDITOR:Assoc.Prof.dr.SVENM.LAUDIEN,UniversityofBayreuth,Bayreuth,GermanyEDITORIALBOARD:Prof.dr.PARTENIEDUMBRAVA,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaProf.dr.MASAHIKOYOSHII,KobeUniversity,JapanProf.dr.JÁNOSSZÁZ,CorvinusUniversity,Budapest,HungaryProf.dr.PHILIPPEBURNY,UniversitédeLiège,Liège,BelgiumProf.dr.MARILENPIRTEA,WestUniversity,Timişoara,RomaniaProf.dr.SEDEFAKGÜNGÖR,DokuzEylülUniversity,Izmir,TurkeyProf.dr.STANISLAVAACINSIGULINSKI,SuboticaUniversityofNoviSad,SerbiaProf.dr.DJULABOROZAN,J.J.StrossmayerUniversityofOsijek,Osijek,CroatiaProf.dr.CORNELIAPOP,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaProf.dr.IOANCRISTIANCHIFU,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaProf.dr.SMARANDACOSMA,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaProf.Ing.MIROSLAVSVATOŠ,CSc.,CzechUniversityofLifeScience,Prague,CzechRepublicProf.dr.SIMEONKARAFOLAS,TechnologicalEducationalInstitute(TEI)ofWestern

Macedonia,GreeceProf.UEKDr.hab.MAREKĆWIKLICKI,CracowUniversityofEconomics,PolandProf.UEKDr.hab.KRZYSZTOFWACH,CracowUniversityofEconomics,PolandAssoc.Prof.dr.IVANAKRAFTOVA,UniversityofPardubice,CzechRepublicAssoc.Prof.dr.MEDETYOLAL,AnadoluUniversity,Eskisehir,TurkeyAssoc.Prof.dr.KARELTOMŠÍK,CzechUniversityofLifeSciences,Prague,CzechRepublicAssoc.Prof.dr.BERNAKIRKULAK‐ULUDAG,DokuzEylülUniversity,Izmir,TurkeyAssoc.Prof.dr.PHAPRUKEUSSAHAWANITCHAKIT,MahasarakhamUniversity,Maha

Sarakham,ThailandAssoc.Prof.dr.OVIDIUIOANMOISESCU,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaAssoc.Prof.dr.ELENADANABAKO,Babeş‐BolyaiUnivesity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaAssoc.Prof.dr.MARIA‐ANDRADAGEORGESCU,NationalUniversityofPoliticalStudies

andPublicAdministration,RomaniaAssist.Prof.dr.GURHANAKTAS,DokuzEylülUniversity,Izmir,TurkeySeniorLect.PETERJOHNRAS,TshwaneUniversityofTechnology,SouthAfricaSeniorLect.dr.SUSANNALEVINAMIDDELBERG,North‐WestUniversity,Potchefstroom,

SouthAfricaLect.dr.GAMONSAVATSOMBOON,MahasarakhamUniversity,MahaSarakham,ThailandAssoc.Prof.dr.OANAGICĂ,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaIndependentfinancialanalystELISARINASTITIMURESAN,Seattle,USASECRETARIESOFTHEEDITORIALBOARD:Assoc.Prof.dr.OANAGICĂ,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaLect.dr.MARIAMONICACOROŞ,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,Romania

YEAR Volume62(LXII)2017MONTHSEPTEMBERISSUE3

PUBLISHEDONLINE:2017‐09‐30PUBLISHEDPRINT:2017‐09‐30

ISSUEDOI:10.24193/subbnegotia.2017.3

STUDIAUNIVERSITATISBABEŞ–BOLYAI

NEGOTIA

3

STUDIAUBBEDITORIALOFFICE:B.P.Hasdeuno.51,400371Cluj‐Napoca,Romania,Phone+40264405352;[email protected]

CONTENT – SOMMAIRE – INHALT – CUPRINS

ADINALETIȚIANEGRUȘA,IULIAMARIASTÂRCU,StrategicFeaturesoftheSMEs’ Innovation Process: The Case of Food Services from the Cluj‐NapocaMarket..........................................................................................................................................5

MARIA ZUBA‐CISZEWSKA,TheRole of Small andMediumEnterprises intheFoodIndustry:TheCaseofPoland..................................................................25

MANUELA LUPU, Ethical Behavior of Romanian Students. Does GenderMatter?...............................................................................................................................................47

CORNELIAPOP,CRISTINABALINT,RomanianRuralLodgings:HowManySurvived Over a Decade? A Preliminary Study Focused on the RuralLocalitiesHosting10orMoreAccommodationUnits.........................................69

STUDIAUBBNEGOTIA,LXII,3,2017,pp.5‐24(RECOMMENDEDCITATION)DOI:10.24193/subbnegotia.2017.3.01

STRATEGICFEATURESOFTHESMES’INNOVATIONPROCESS:THECASEOFFOODSERVICESFROMTHECLUJ‐NAPOCAMARKET

ADINALETIȚIANEGRUȘA1,IULIAMARIASTÂRCU2

ABSTRACT.Theinnovationprocessforsmallandmedium‐sizedenterprises(SMEs)continues toplayacritical role in theirdevelopment.Due to theirabilitytoprovidedifferentiatedproductsandservices,SMEswhichinnovatearemoresuccessfulthantheirnon‐innovativecompetitors.Thehospitalityindustry is considered a highly competitive sector therefore enterprisesacting in this fieldshoulddevelopnew innovativeoffers.Research inthe field of innovationbehavior in the hospitality industry has not beensystematicallyinvestigated,andespeciallyregardingthefoodservicessector fromRomania.Thus, thispaperaimsatcovering thisgap.ThepurposeofthispaperistoanalyzethestrategicfeaturesoftheinnovationprocessappliedbyfoodserviceSMEsfromCluj‐Napoca,basedontheirbehaviortowardsinnovationandonitsimpactupontheirbusinessactivity.Aqualitativestudyhasbeendeveloped,basedonpersonalinterviewswithentrepreneursoffood‐servicesSMEs.Theresearchresultspresentthetypesof innovationsmost frequently implemented, the resulted benefitsand the future expected goals based on these innovations, and theentrepreneurs’featureswhichsupporttheinnovationprocess.Thisis thefirst study,whichprovides an investigation regarding the innovationbehaviorofthefoodserviceenterprisesfromCluj‐Napocaandcontributestotheexistingliteratureoninnovation,presentingapracticalapproachonthestrategicbehavioroftheSMEsfromthissector.

1ProfessorDr.,DepartmentofHospitalityServices,FacultyofBusiness,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,Romania,[email protected]

2Economist,[email protected]

ADINALETIȚIANEGRUȘA,IULIAMARIASTÂRCU

6

Keywords:innovationprocess,hospitalityindustry,strategy,differentiatedstrategy.JELclassification:L83,O31.

Recommended citation: Negrusa, A.L., Starcu, I.M.,Strategic featuresof theSMEs’innovationprocess:thecaseoffoodservicesfromtheCluj‐Napocamarket,StudiaUBBNegotiavol.62,issue3(September),2017,pp.5‐24.

1. IntroductionForthehospitalityindustry,innovationistheoxygen(Anderson

etal.,2008).Serviceinnovationprovidesthelinkbetweenalltheactorsinvolved;startingwithguests,operationemployeesandmanagerialpositions,moving further to suppliersand intermediaries, all the shareholders andthestakeholdersarecommittedtoinnovation.

In 2008, at a roundtable on innovation, professionals in thehospitalityindustryhaveidentifiedthreekeyelementsofserviceinnovation:customer‐focused,process‐focusedandcontinuous improvement(Vermaetal.,2008).Thefirstelementimpliesthatsuccessfulbusinessesinvolvedin the hospitality industry have asmain objective a customer‐centricapproach and their focus is on exceeding customer’s expectations. Incomparisonwiththemanufacturingviewon innovation,serviceshavetomeetorexceedexpectationsandanynewtechnology,procedureormethodintroducedinthebusinessshouldhavethispurpose.Afterall,any new improvement or investment in a business is defined as anadded‐valueelementtowardsanincreaseincustomersatisfaction,and,inthelong‐term,inthebusinessitself.

STRATEGICFEATURESOFTHESMES’INNOVATIONPROCESS…

7

Thechallengeswhichcomealongwithserviceinnovation includethemeasurementofit,theeffectsithasuponprofits,theunderstandingof thecustomers, thepredictionof the impactandtheacceptanceofacertaintechnologicalinnovation,theimplementationofarewardsystemfor the employees, and the idea that innovation itself is easy to beduplicated. This idea of imitation, which is more easily performed incomparisonwithproductinnovation,hasconsequencesontherelationshipwiththecustomer.Duetothefactthatthecustomerismoreandmoreeducatedandexperienced,isgettingfastaccustomedwithnovelty.Thiswayhe/sheexpectssomethingdifferenteverytimeandthisplacesalotofpressureonthehospitalityunit.

However,beingthefirstmoverorthefollowerisnotsoimportant(Fultzetal.,2016).Whatcountsisprovingagilityandastrongcapacitytoadapttothenewindustry’schallengesandtotheconsumers’needs.OnceaCEOofabrandrestaurantconcludedthatthemainchallengeinanunsettlingworldistobecourageous(KPMGReport,2016)andthisiseasierforsmallcompanies.

2. TheoreticalbasisThe conceptof innovationwasapproached for the first timeat

thebeginningofthe20thCenturybytheAustrianeconomistandProfessorJoseph A. Schumpeter. He shaped the idea that the key role of anentrepreneuristocarryoutnewcombinations,throughdiscontinuousandrevolutionary changes, which disrupt the static mode of the economicdevelopment towards a more fluctuating and dynamic environment(Schumpeter,2012).Thevolatility,uncertainty,complexityandambiguityof today’sworld demand a highdegree of adaptability from themarketand,mostofthetimes,thisadaptabilitytranslatesintothecapacityofanorganizationtoinnovate,asSchumpetersaid,“carryingoutinnovationsistheonlyfunctionwhichisfundamentalinhistory”(Sledzick,2013).


8

Innovation is by far a source of value creation where newcombinations of resources,methods,market sources are retransformingoldconcepts intosomethingwhichisperceivedasnewbythe consumer.According to Schumpeter’s theory, entrepreneurs have five areas toinnovate:developmentofnewproducts,newprocesses,newmarkets,newsuppliersandchangingorganization(Schumpeter,2012).

Hall and Williams (2008) define innovation as the process ofbringing any new problem solving idea into use. In this context,innovationsareanyideaforreorganizing,cuttingcost,puttinginanewbudgetarysystem, improvingcommunication,processes,productsandservices.Ontheotherhand,Fagerberg(2005)arguesthatimitatorsaremuchmorelikelytosucceedinachievingtheiraimsiftheyimprovetheoriginal innovationandbecome innovators themselves.Generally,oneinnovationtendstoenableanotherinnovationinthesameorinrelatedfields.Therefore, innovationbecomesa creativeprocess inwhichoneimportantinnovationinitiatesaseriesofsubsequentinnovations.

Gallouj & Weinstein (1997) have identified two factors thatchallengetheinnovationintheservices’industries.Firstly,the innovationtheory was developed mainly from a technological perspective, andsecondly,unliketangibleproducts,serviceshavedifferentiatedfeaturesthatgivethemamoreintangibledimension,therefore,itismoredifficulttoquantifythem.Inessence,inanyfoodservicebusinessexperimentationandcompetitionarealwayspresent,lookingateachotherandtryingtoprovide an offering and an experience to the customer (Klass, 2017).Unlikeproducts,servicesaresimultaneouslyproducedandconsumed.Service innovation involves changes in many areas and, sometimes,processinnovationandproductinnovationcannotbeseparated.Hence,serviceinnovationisproducedandconsumedatthesametime.Addingthis aspect to the hospitality industry, determines the fact that thedecision to purchase versus the decision to consume are no longerseparated.


9

IfSchumpeterhasdividedinnovationintofivecategories,whenitcomestoserviceinnovation,thiscategorizationhasbeenreducedtofourmaindivisions(OsloManual,2005):

• Productinnovations:products,services,andtheirattributes;• Processesinnovations:operationalprocesses;• Knowledgeof themarket innovations:distribution channels,web‐based communication, customer loyalty, informationsharing,andmarketinginnovations;

• Management/Organizational innovations: changes inorganizationalstructures,policies,non‐operationalprocesses,andtheinformalculture.

In1999, SundboandGallouj, describedorganizational innovationsas“newgeneralformsoforganizationormanagementsuchasintroductionof TQM” (Carvalho et al., 2011). Process innovations are defined asrenewalsofalltheperspectiveproceduresforproducingaserviceandfurtherdeliverit.Inthecaseofthehospitalityindustry,thisdivisioncanbefurther split into twocategories: innovations inproductionprocesses,whicharebackofficeprocedures,andindeliveryprocesses,whicharefront office.Market innovations are newmarket behaviors, such as anewmarketsegmentsortheentryofanotherindustryintothismarket.

With a perspective less oriented towards production andmanufacturing,fiftyyearslater,PeterDruckeridentifiedanotherdimensionof innovation and entrepreneurship, which is focusing more on theknowledge‐based and customer‐centered perspectives. In his view,“innovationistheworkofknowingratherthandoing”and“innovationis thechangethatcreatesanewdimensionofperformance”(Drucker,2002).Thus, innovation in thehospitality industrybecamea commonactionandnowcanbeseenasakeyfactorinthebusinessstrategy.Evenmore,Sundbo(2002)proposesthenewconceptofstrategicinnovationtheory,whichregardsstrategyasbothaninterpretationofenvironmentaldevelopmentsandatoolformanagingtheinnovationprocess.Inorder to


10

maintaincompetitiveadvantages,thehospitalityindustryhastoundertakecontinuousinnovation.Accordingly,theinnovationprocesscanbeseenasasystemorcollaborativeprocess,designedofthetotalactivitiesandinteractionsthatimplementthedevelopmentstrategy(Edquist,2005).Thus, Kavoura & Katsoni (2013) argue that the incorporation ofinformationandcommunication technologies into the tourismmarketingstrategywillplayasignificantroleinstrengtheningnetworksandalliancesfortheimplementationofsuccessfultourismdevelopment.

Hospitalityenterprisesareamongthefirstadoptersofinnovations,hence,innovationshavebecomeastrategictoolforbothsuccessfulchainsand independent hospitality enterprises alike (Ottenbacher, et al., 2006).Indeed,innovativepracticesinthelodgingindustryarenotonlyimportantfor competitive success, but also to ensure that intrinsic motivatedemployeeslongtoworkintheindustry(Enz&Siguaw,2003).Peters&Pikkemaat(2006),andOttenbacher&Gnoth(2005)emphasizeaspotentialdriversoftheinnovationprocess:employeetraining,employeecommitment,employee expertise, employee involvement in the innovation process,humanresourcestrategy,andinnovativenetwork.

Regardingtheinnovationsourcesinthefoodsector,anewideawaspresented that foodservice is the ecosystemwherenew conceptsand trends are tested and that these new products are usually 100%incremental,incomparison,forexample,withtheretailsectorwhereashighas85%iscannibalization(Klass,2017).Thesamestudyexacerbatesthefocusontheconsumer,bystatingthattheconsumershouldbeplacedfirst in innovation. Companies should notmix research and developmentbetween channels and, instead, they should focuson innovatingwith thecustomerinmindandunderstandingandanalyzingthewayhe/shereacts.

Foodspecialists,trendsettersintherestaurantbusinessbroughtuptheideathatthecreativeenergyhasmoveditsfocusfromwhatwasoncethefollowinghotdish,thearistocraticmolecularcuisine,toyoung,daringentrepreneurswhoexperimentandplaywithpulsesandinnovativebrews,fermentedproductsandbakeinsectbarsandcookalgaenoodles.


11

3. Abriefoverviewof the food servicesmarket fromCluj‐Napoca

Cluj‐Napoca is a complex environment and a future hub of

innovationintheHospitalityIndustryandthemixofconcepts.Thenewtrend is all about niches, creating something specific and valuable,highlyqualitativeandpowerfullysustainedbyabrand,byaconcept,byexperiences and by involving the clients not only as pure consumers,butgivingthemtheroleofbrandambassadorsoftheconceptitself.

One category regards the coffee sector, which has developedsignificantlyinCluj‐Napocaduringthelastfiveyears,andthequalityofthecoffeebeans,theblendsandtheequipmentused,areredefiningthecafé’sindustry,raisingthestandardsforthenewentrieswhileeducatingthe clients and increasing their expectations.EuropeanCoffeeTrips, amagazinespecialized inpresentingthebestcafésandroasters inEurope,listsCluj‐Napocawithsevencafés:Bujole,VictorFreshtoGo,OlivoCafé,Roots,Let’sCoffee,YumeCoffeeRoastersandCoffeeAddicts,whichhavebeentastedandaccreditedbythepublishingmagazine.Thefocusisonhigh quality coffee, blends, brewingmethods such asChemex, SyphonCoffee,V60, ColdBrew andAeroPress, all these elements putting Cluj‐Napocaonthemapasarepresentativeforthe3rdwaveofcoffee.Inanarticleon start‐up.ro (Suciu)oneof theownersof thenewest cafés intown, Narcoffee Roasters (see Figure 1), which has as vision to be afuture chain of specialized cafés, has mentioned the 3rd wave coffeemovement. This trend is seen as a reaction against bad coffee and aninterest from the barista, the café’s owner and the customer towardstheoriginsof thecoffeebeans, theprocess itselfandthe finalproducttheywill experience. Coffee is served at daytime but as the sun goesdown,manyoftheplacesretransformintosmallwine‐bars.


12

Figure1.CoffeeDegustationatNarcoffeeRoastersinCluj‐Napoca

(Source:GoogleImages)

Thewine‐bar is another popular conceptwhich is blooming inCluj‐Napoca.Places likeCrushWineBar,BrunoWineBar,TheOfficeWineBarorWineoClock,nottoaddthewinecellarswhicharedirectlyopenbytheproviders,arestartingtocoveranichespecializedinprovidingandpromotingnotonlyqualitywinesbutalsoalifestylewhichtargetsamoreexquisiteandinitiatedcustomer.Thedemandandtheawarenesstowards wineries is growing and wine‐bars have a strong focus oneducating the clients, by organizing different events of wine tasting,courseson thesubjector simplybyprovidingcustomerswith the adviceneededfor/whenchoosingthebestwineontheeveningwhentheyenterthe location.Moreover,Romanianwinesarewinningagreatshareof themarket,andwine‐barsinCluj‐Napocahaveasobjectivetopromotethislegacy.BrandssuchasRecas,Corcova,Lacerta,Stirbey,DomeniileSahatenihavegreatappealingtothelocalmarket,slowlygainingthesamereputationasinternationalwines.


13

4. ResearchmethodThemainpurposeofthisstudywas,ononehand,toinvestigate

what changes and innovations were brought by the small companies

active in food services over the last years and their impact on the

businessactivity,and,ontheotherhand,toidentifystrategicfeaturesfor

the innovation process. Accordingly, a qualitative study was developed

andrunonentrepreneurswhoactivateinthehospitalityindustry,whose

businessunitsoperateonthemarketfromCluj‐Napoca,andwhich,havebroughtanewconceptonthemarket,or,havehadsomeinitiativesthat

make themrelevantexamples for this industry.Anumberof27smallbusinessesfromthefieldoffoodserviceswereselectedandapersonal

interviewwasdesignedtogetadeeperunderstanding,behindthestoryofaparticipant’sexperience.

Theentireprocesswascarriedout inaplannedandstructuredmanner, following an interview guide which included two parts. The

firstpart focusedon theentrepreneur’smotives to start thebusiness,

onidentifyingtheopportunitiestakenintoaccountinthisinitiative,andondiscoveringthecoreelementsofthebusinessconcept.Thesecondpart

ofthe interviewfollowedthetopicofthe innovationprocess. Innovationactivitiesandinnovationbehaviorweremeasuredfollowingtheinnovation

theory and literature review (Oslo Manual, 2005), focusing on thechangesmadeinthecompany,onabriefanalysisconcerningthefuture

objectivesof therespondentsandon theoverviewofCluj‐Napocaand itsfutureinthehospitalityindustry.Datahavebeencollectedfromanumber

of11entrepreneursinterviewedduring3weeksandaqualitativeanalysis

hasbeendonebasedonthetheoreticalaspectsidentifiedinthespecific

literature.


14

5. ResultsanddiscussionsMotivationinitiatesthedecisionprocessatindividuallevel.Itis

‘theinternal,psychologicalinfluenceaffectingtheindividuals’choice(s)(Middleton,1994).Therefore,understandingtheentrepreneur’smotivestostartthebusinessactivityisakeyelementforunderstandingtheirbehaviorduring the business development. For the majority of the interviewrespondents,theideatostartabusinesswithinthehospitalitysectorcamefromtheirownneedtochangesomething intheir life.Forexample, afterworkingforanimportantperiodoftime,like7or10yearsindifferentdomains,someownersfeltthatitwastimetochangesomethingintheirlives,andthatiswhytheydecidedtofollowanolddream:

“It issaidthatafter10yearsoneneedstochangesomething.Idecided to say stop to my 10 years career in the corporateenvironment, inmarketing, toopen thisbusiness,which IhavebeendreamingaboutsinceIwasastudent,andtotrymyluckinentrepreneurship.”(Source:interview)

Another considerable influence comes from abroad, throughtravelling,studyingorworking.Someoftheownersareforeign,namelyJapanese andCanadian, and their love forRomania triggered them tostarthere.Moreover,travelling,studyingorworkingabroadisanotherimportantarea in thedecisionprocess.Entrepreneursgot inspiredbyseeing; thus,aspecificconceptwasdevelopedabroad,orseeingsomeelementswhichgreatlyhaveinfluencedtheirbusiness.

Therefore, in terms of push‐pull theory regarding motivation,onemayconcludethatforanimportantpartoftheentrepreneursfromthe foodservicesmarket, themaindeterminantsof theirbehaviorarerelated topush factors, those internal forces, thatarepsychological innatureandwhichcreatethedesiretostartabusinessactivity.


15

Whenitcomestobusinessmotivation,thebusinessopportunityrepresents the entrepreneurs’ reason for entering theRomanianmarket,focusingonthewaytheymanagedtobringaconcepthereandtryingtovalidateit.

Figure2.FactorsrelevantfortheBusinessOpportunity

(Source:authors’dataprocessing)

The answers show (Figure 2) that a considerable number of

entrepreneursconsideredthelackoftheconceptonthelocalmarkettobe themainopportunity fordeveloping theirbusinessactivity.Due tothisresult,regardingthenoveltyoftheconcept,mentionedindifferentwaysby theowners, onemay conclude that thehospitalityRomanianmarket is more in a growing stage and therefore attractive to newinvestors.Theideatooffersomethingnew,toinnovateinsomewaytheserviceortheproductisenoughtoattractamarketsegment.

AsitresultsfromFigure2,the“needforthisconcept”wasbarelymentionedbytherespondents.Veryfewofthem,12%oftheentrepreneurs,statedthattheopportunitycamebecausetherewasaneedforthatspecific

12%

47%

23%

12%

6%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

a global food trend

no such concept on theRomanian market

the concept was testedabroad

the need for this concept

the need to change theplace's image


16

foodserviceconcept,orbecause they identifieda trend in that direction.Thisemphasizesevenmoretheideaofanincreasingdemandforfoodservicesandalowintensityofthecompetitiononthelocalmarket.Also,there is a strong international influence, thus concepts thatproved to beworking abroad were considered a strong opportunity and thereforewere implementedon the localmarket.Generally, these are examplesforspecializedrestaurant, that focusonaspecific typeof food(vegan)orproduct(salad,tarts)orrestaurantwithspecifickitchen, likeMexican,Italian,etc.

Regarding the area of innovation, presented in Figure 3, themajorityoftheentrepreneursmadechangesandimplementedsomethingnewintheproducts’concept(s).Onetypeofchangeisthe ideaofmixingelementsortrendsoftheworldwidecuisine.Forexample,abistrohasimplementedaconceptwhichiscalledTreatoftheWeek,whentheso‐called“bistrotrain”travelseachweektoanotherpartoftheworldandbringssomethingnewtothecustomers.Thiswaythebistro’sofferwasdiversifiedanditwasabletobringnoveltyinacurrentway.Thereareexamples of units which mixed two national cuisines through theirdishesinanendeavortoadapttheiroffertothemarket’sneedsand,atthe same time, to educate the customer’s(s’) taste. As it resulted, therespondentsare in linewithglobal trends.Duetoamorecost‐conscious,wellinformedandexperience‐focusedtypeofcustomer,nowadaystheunits on food services market have to apply changes to meet theseexpectances.Even if thebusinessunitsdecidetousea focusstrategyandbecamewell‐knownonanichemarketsegment,intimetheystillremainedtooscillateamongdifferenttypesofproductsandtheideaofimplementingadiversificationstrategy.

Thenextfactoronwhichtherespondentsfocusedistheinvestmentin technologyandtheequipmentused.Someplacesneededsome specialpiecesofkitchenequipment,astheintervieweessaidrice,pastaorthepattiesforthetartsneedsomespecialprocessestohavethequalitydesired,eventhoughtheproductitselfmayseemsimpleandeasytocook.


17

Figure3.Theareasofinnovations

(Source:authors’dataprocessing)

Alongwiththeimprovementsbroughtintheareaoftechnology,

come also the investment in processes and managerial organization.Onerestaurant’smanagerstatedthatinRomaniaitisdifficulttorunthebusiness based on certain processes, because, especially within thisindustry, there are aspectswhich change regularly.However, someofthe interviewed units’ representatives are initiating the Romanianfranchise system.The entrepreneursmentioned that theyhavebegunto take collaboration into consideration when they understood thecomplexity and dimension/extension of the business. The franchisesystem was built rigorously, the owners even developing their ownsoftwareinthisrespect.TheyrecognizedthatattimesitcanbedifficulttoworkwithRomanianfranchisees,however,theyfacilitatetheentirefranchising process by offering their know‐how, support, constantauditing to ensure the proper development of the branch. Anotherexampleofprocessinnovationregardsthedevelopmentofanexcellentnetworkofdeliveryformanyofthebusinessunits.

63%

45%

73%

54%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

design and brand

product

processes and managerialorganization

technology and equipment


18

A significant area for innovations and improvements concernsdesignandbranding.OneofthemostimpressiveachievementsforthistrendgoestoJobenBistro,which,inlessthanayearafteropening,wasrankedamong the top10bars and restaurants’ designsworldwide. Itwas featured inanarticleonDailyMail (2014)whichstated:“FaithfultoSteampunk’spseudo‐Victorianstyle, JobenBistro’s threeroomstakevisitorstoaworldoffantasyandscience‐fiction.DesignedbyaRomanianstudio, JobenBistro counts dozens of quirky objects on thewalls andhanging from the ceiling, includingamounteddeerhead fittedwithamonocle and other mechanical objects.” The steampunk elements of theplace were and still are a source of inspiration for businesses both inRomaniaandabroad.

Another trendwhich isgrowingmoreandmorepopular in theareaofprocessinnovationisthecommunicationwiththeclients,bothonline and offline. Nowadays, digitalization is a global trend, and thehospitalityindustryneedstokeeppacewithit.AlltherespondentshaveaFacebook page and most of them have a website. Also, a significantpercentageuseInstagram.Moreover,oneofthemstatedthattheyhiredaMarketingcompanytomanagetheironlinestrategy.This isaccordancewiththeconclusionofToader&Gica(2014)concerningtheinnovationactivity of the accommodation units form Cluj‐Napoca: social mediarepresentingakeytoolformarketingactivities.

On theotherhand,word‐of‐mouthandorganicgrowtharestillthebesttoolsformakingrenownaplacethatoperatesintheservices’industry/for creating the reputation of a place operating in services’industry. The interview respondentsmentioned that they are not toointrusiveon theonlineplatformsand that they try tocreateanaturalflowofpostsandgivecustomersrelevantcontent,pleasantandinterestinginformation.Forexample,ZAMAsaidthattheydidnotuseadvertisingfortheopening,theyjustwaitedtoseehowthepeoplewillrespond.AlaTartehadapleasantsurpriseto learn/discoverthattheconceptoftheplaceattractedthenationalnews.Animportantnationaltelevisionpresentedthe


19

locationinadocumentary.Whenitcomestoonlinepromotion,thequestionandmainchallengeishowcompaniescanstilldifferentiate,now,whenonlinemarketingisavailabletoanyone.Forcertain,innovationitselfdoesnot consist anymore in simply having a Facebook page, awebsite, anInstagram channeloranyotherplatform.The innovationnowadays isrelatedtousingtheplatforminsuchawaythatwillenrichtheexperienceoftheclients,willbringthemsomeadded‐valueandwillalsoletthemfreelyexpresstheirviewsabouttheplace.Moreover,therealtarget istoconvertthoselikesintoactualordersandclients.

ThatiswhyanotherwaytoattractacertainsegmentofclientsisthroughSocialResponsibilityandactiveinvolvementinthecommunity.Forexample,ChioshasamongitsvaluesSocialInvolvement,promotingtalentsformClujandbuyingrawmaterialfrompoorvillagesinRomania.OffTheWall offers discounts to peoplewho come at their placewithticketsfromfestivalslikeTIFForUNTOLD,andtheyhavedecidedtoactthiswayeven though theydonothaveanofficialagreementwith thefestivals’organizers.Moreover,theyreceivetouristsfromTransylvaniaHostelandofferthemadinnerwithinthebudgetofthehostel,thiswayhelpingboth the tourists tohave amoremulticultural experiencebutalso the hostel to attract more international tourists. Off the Wallpromotes local producers and places a great emphasize on buyinggenuineingredients.PokkaandTokyogetinvolvedintothecommunitybyparticipatingatdifferentpublicandprivatefestivals,likethedaysofthecity(ZileleClujului)orStreetFoodFestival.Moreover,Tokyohasanagreementwithachildrenshelter/homeandhelpsthemregularly.Thesesmallinitiatives,beinggathered,areanimportantelement,buildingastrongcommunity,bothintheindustryitselfbutalsobycreatingawarenessandengagingcustomersinthelocalarea.Theentrepreneursofthesebusinessconceptsaretryingtoattractacertainnicheofclients,thoseclientswhoare loyal to the brand because the business does something extra andmeaningful.Suchclients,educated,initiated,aremoreandmoreinclinedtochoose thoseplaceswhere food isgreen,wheresomeof therevenues


20

gotowardsacause,wherefoodisnotwasted,whereartisticmanifestationsarepromoted,whereexhibitions,creativeworkshopsareorganizedandheld.

6. Conclusions

AccordingtoGriffin&Page(1996),hospitalityunitshavedifferentobjectiveswhenitcomestointroducingnewservices,ononesidetherearethefinancialreasons,and,ontheotherside,therearetheperformancegoals,whichareorientedmore towardsrelationalmarketing, towardsguests,improvingexperience,towardstheemployeesandthecommunity.Ofcourse,itcannotbedeniedthatalltheseperformanceobjectiveswould,atsomepoint,increasethefinancialobjectives,aswell.However,whenacompanydecidestobuyonlylocalingredientstoimprovethequalityof the dish their decision is not so cost efficient in comparison withbuying the same ingredients fromabig supermarket chain.Thus, thisobjectiveisstillaboutperformance,aboutcreatingthereputationoftheplace,aboutdifferentiatingonthemarket,aboutbuildingacompetitiveadvantage,which,onthelongrun,wouldbecomemoredifficulttoimitate.IfGriffin(1997)considersthat4of10 innovations failon themarket,andtherearenofactualnumbersforthehospitalityindustry,however,otherresearcherssuggestthatthefailurenumberisevenhigherandmanyrestaurantconceptsdonotresistmuchonthemarket(Ottenbacheretal.,2005). Many hospitality units face the challenge of developing a newservicewithlittleknowledgeofthemarketasawhole,consequentlytheriskassociatedtosuccessorfailureispresentatequalrates.Mostofthetime,managershavetotrusttheirinstinct,theirfeelingandtoactaccordingly,eventhoughtheydonothaveaguaranteeoftheirnewidea.

Basedonthedatacollectedthroughthisstudyweidentifiedfourperformancedimensionsonwhichinnovationsandchangeshavebeenbrought, and these (seeFigure4)not entirelydirected towards financialgoals.


21

Mostof the respondentshave focusedon technologyand productinnovation,andthroughthesetheyaimatmaintainingafocusstrategyforthebusinessdevelopment.Alloftheentrepreneursdescribedtheirbusinessconcepts as being niched and having up to some point internationalinfluences.Thetargetmarketseemstoberepresentedbytheyoungmaturegeneration,withahighlevelofeducationandwithenoughexperienceinordertoseekadifferenttypeofservice.

Theseclientsrepresentanichewhichwillgrowinthenearfuture,becausepeoplenowadayswantmorethanasimpledinningout,theywantanexperience,and,ifthisexperiencewillfulfilmorethanpsychologicalneedsandwillgotowardstheself‐acquisitionones,thanthecustomerwillbecomeapromoteroftheplace.Therefore,eventhoughtheresultsarenotimmediate,companieswhichareactive,havebyfaridentifiedawayofputtingthemselvesaheadandofbuildingastrongcompetitiveadvantage.

Figure4.StrategicfeaturesfortheinnovationprocessappliedbySMEs

fromthefoodservicesmarket

(Source:authors’compilation)


22

Looking at the right side of the chart, themain features of thebusinessownersincludeamixbetweencreativityandpragmatism,alotofpassionfortheirworkandalsothefactthattheyareallrisk‐takers.WhenitcomestothefutureandwhattheywouldliketoimplementinCluj‐Napoca,themainstrategicobjectivesfocusonthreedimensions:tocreatea strongbrand, todevelopand introducenewconcepts, and toensurethelong‐termstabilityofthebranditself.

Nowadays, within the food services market, the innovation’sprincipleisthatofrenewingoldconcepts,whichwereoncecommoninourgrandmothers’kitchens.Coveringeverythingwithtechnologyis justawayofbringingtheconcepttothenewestgenerationsandtomake themawareofit.

TheDigitalEraisanopendoortowardstheworld,andglobalizationistheprocessofmakingthingsuniformandaccessibletoeveryonenomatter their geographical position. However, even though the hospitalityindustry is increasingly globalizeddue to international chains suchasMcDonalds,StarbucksorhotelchainslikeHilton,FourSeasonsorplatformslikeBooking.comandAirbnb,moreandmorebusinessesbecameorientedtowardsidentifyingthepeopleandthecultureswheretheyoperate.

REFERENCES

Anderson,C.,Verma,R.,Dixon,M.(2008).KeyElementsinServiceInnovation:Insights for the Hospitality Industry, The Center for HospitalityResearch,CornellUniversityavailableat:

http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/chrconf/1/,accessedin25.04.2017.Carvalho, L., Costa, T. (2011). Tourism Innovation ‐ A Literature Review

ComplementedbyCaseStudyResearch,availableat: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/5018539.pdf, accessed in

25.04.2017.


23

Edquist,C.,(2005).“TheSystemsofInnovation:PerspectivesandChallenges“,in: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R.,TheOxfordHandbook ofInnovation,Oxford,UniversityPress,pp.181‐208.

Enz,C.&Harrison,J.(2008).InnovationandentrepreneurshipintheHospitalityIndustry,CornellUniversity,SchoolofHotelAdministrationsiteavailableat:http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/605accessedin25.04.2017.

Fagerberg,J.(2005).“Innovation“,in:Fagerberg,J.,Mowery,D.C.,Nelson,R.R.,TheOxfordHandbookofInnovation,Oxford,UniversityPress,pp.1‐27.

Fultz, P., Rampoldt, J. (2016). An appetite for change: Key trends drivinginnovationintherestaurantindustry,availableat:

https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/07/kr‐gtl‐an‐appetite‐for‐change.pdf,accessedin15.05.2017.

Gallouj,F.andWeinstein,O.(1997).Innovationinservices.ResearchPolicy,26(4‐5),537‐556.

Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA research on new product development practice:updating trends and benchmarking best practises, Journal of ProductInnovationManagement,14(6),429‐458.

Griffin,A.&Page,A.L.(1996).PDMAsuccessmeasurementproject:Recommendedmeasures for product development success and failure. Journal ofProductInnovationManagement,13(2),478‐496.

KavouraA.,KatsoniV.(2013).Frome‐businesstoc‐commerce:Collaborationand network creation for an e‐marketing tourism strategy, Tourismos8(3):113‐128.

Klass, J. (2017). Food Service: The Innovation Kitchen for Consumer Goods,availableat:https://www.accenture.com/t20170403T223032__w__/us‐en/_acnmedia/PDF‐48/Accenture‐Foodservice‐PoV.pdf, accessed in15.05.2017.

KPMGReport(2016).AnAppetiteforchange.Keytrendsdrivinginnovationintherestaurantindustry,availableat:

https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/07/An‐Appetite‐For‐Change.pdf,accesedin18.05.2017.

Mavale,S.,Rautela,S.(2015).IncrementalInnovationforSustainableGrowthin Restaurant Businesses: Global Practices for the Growth of LocalBusiness,AnnualResearch JournalofSymbiosisCentre forManagementStudies,PuneVol.4:80‐87.


24

Middleton,Victor(1994).Practicalenvironmentalpolicies intraveland tourism—Part II:airlines, touroperatorsanddestinations. EIUTravel&TourismAnalyst,83–97(1).

Oslo Manual (2005). Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and InterpretingTechnologicalInnovationData,OECD.

Ottenbacher,M. (2007). InnovationManagement in theHospitality Industry:DifferentStrategies forAchievingSuccess, JournalofHospitality&TourismResearch,31.4,pp.431‐454.

Ottenbacher,M., andGnoth, J. (2005).How to develop successful hospitalityinnovation.CornellHotelsandRestaurantAdministrationQuarterly, 46(2),205–222.

Ottenbacher, M., Shaw, V., Lockwood A. (2006). “An Investigation of theFactors Affecting Innovation Performance in Chain and IndependentHotels”,JournalofQualityAssuranceinHospitality&Tourism,Volume6,pp.113‐128.

Peters, M., Pikkemaat, B. (2006). Towards the Measurement of Innovation,JournalofQualityAssurance inHospitality&Tourism,Volume6,pp.89‐112.

Śledzik K. (2013). Schumpeter’s view on innovation and entrepreneurship(in:)ManagementTrends inTheory and Practice, (ed.) Stefan Hittmar,FacultyofManagementScience and Informatics,UniversityofZilina&InstituteofManagementbyUniversityofZilina,pp.89‐95.

Sundbo,J.(2002).TheStrategicManagementofInnovation:ASociologicalandEconomicTheory,Massachusettts,EdwardElgarPublishingLimited,pp.443.

Toader,V.,Gica,O.A.(2014).Innovationinruraltourism‐EvidencefromClujcounty.StudiaUniversitatisBabes‐Bolyai,Negotia,Vol.59(2),pp.57‐73.

Verma,R.,Anderson,C.,Dixon,M.,Enz,C.,Thompson,G.&Victorino,L.(2008).Keyelementsinserviceinnovation:Insightsforthehospitalityindustry[Electronicarticle].CornellHospitalityRoundtableProceedings,1(1),6‐12.

***http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article‐2651991/A‐jump‐fantastical‐past‐Steampunk‐pub‐Romania‐looks‐like‐space‐pages‐Jules‐Verne‐novel.html


THEROLEOFSMALLANDMEDIUMENTERPRISESINTHEFOODINDUSTRY:THECASEOFPOLAND

MARIAZUBA‐CISZEWSKA1

ABSTRACT.Theaimof thearticle is topresent theroleofsmallandmediumenterprises inthefoodindustrysector inPoland.ThePolishfoodindustryincludesover16thousandenterprises,whichrecordedagrowthinresultsoftheiractivities,informofthesoldproductvalue,of60%between2005and2016(to48.6billionEuro).Thelargestgroupoftheenterprisesinfoodindustryaretheentitiesthatemployupto9people (64% in 2015). Their role in manufacture and employmentdecreases, similar to the shareof small andmediumenterprises thataccountforoverathirdofallenterprises.Eachofthebranchesoffoodindustryisdominatedbymicro‐enterprises(58%to83%)andtogetherwithsmallandmediumenterprisestheyaccountfor94.6%(manufactureof dairyproducts) to 99.4% (manufactureof bakery and farinaceousproducts).Evenwiththesmallandmediumenterprise(SME)segment(includingmicro)enterprisesdominatingthefoodindustrytheirshareinrevenuesissignificantlylower.InmostofthefoodindustrybranchesthemajorityofemploymentisduetotheSMEsector,withthecrucialrole played by companies employing 50 to 249 people. The foodindustryinPolandalsoensuresthefoodsecurityofthecountry.Localprocessingplantssecurethecontinuityandfastnessofdeliveries,whichisimportantwhenthecharacteristicsoftheseproductsareconsidered.Local products improve the food’s security of local community byimproving accessibility of fresh food. They also meet the customerexpectationstoaccessproductsoflocalmanufacturers,basedontheir

1Dr.,InstituteofEconomicsandManagement,TheJohnPaulIICatholicUniversityofLublin,Poland,e‐mail:[email protected]

MARIAZUBA‐CISZEWSKA

26

manufacturingtraditionandexperience.Smallandmediumenterprisescan effectively penetrate market niches, increasing the diversity ofproducts,frequentlyinnovativeones.Theyareabletodothat,amongothers,becauseofgrowinginvestmentexpenditures.Keywords:SME,foodindustryJELclassification:Q13,L11

Recommended citation: Zuba‐Ciszewska,M.,The roleof smallandmediumenterprisesinthefoodindustry:thecaseofPoland,StudiaUBBNegotia,vol.62,issue3(September),2017,pp.25‐45.

IntroductionThe current plan of the Polish government, entitled “Plan for

responsible development”2 indicates that Poland has to fully use itsdevelopment potential and include smaller towns and rural areas indevelopmentprocessesinordertobuildastrongeconomyinallregions.The theoryofeconomics indicates that smallandmediumenterprises(SMEs)mayplayasignificantroleinregions’development.Thetheoryofdependantdevelopmentstatesthatdevelopmentofperipheralareasiscausedbythecenteranddependsfromit.ThedevelopmentofSMEsinperipheralareas reduces theirdependence from the center.Thepost‐Keynes theory indicates investments as the most important growthfactor,duetotheirmultiplicationeffectsthatstimulate investments inotherareas.Neverthelesstheincomeeffectsofinvestmentsareusually

2TheplanisasetoftoolsdesignedtoincreasethedynamicsofPoland’sdevelopment.Inincludesthediagnosisofcurrentsituation,directionsforgovernmentactionsforthe next years and indicates specific tasks. https://www.mr.gov.pl/media/14840/Plan_na_rzecz_Odpowiedzialnego_Rozwoju_prezentacja.pdf


27

limited in space. Thus the differences in investments levels betweenregionsgeneratethedeepeningofregionaldisparitieswhenthemarketmechanismthatstimulatesthosedisparitiesisnotcorrected.TheSMEscanutilize thegrowth ineffectivedemandcausedby increasedpublicinvestments,bycreatingnewjobs.AccordingtotheeconomicbasetheorytheincreasedincomeofregionresultingfromincreaseinexportsofSMEsthat create thebase sector of the region stimulates the development ofbusinesses producing for local needs or those that are only active inregionalornationalmarket(Makieła,2008).OneofthepresentfeaturesofthePolishdevelopmentistheissueofaverageproduct,manifested–amongothers–by lowR&Dexpenses (less than1%ofGDP)and lowinnovation levels. In an economy that requires fast transformation ofnewknowledgeininnovationandfastdevelopmentofnewknowledge,theSMEsectormayplayacrucialroleinpopularizinginnovations(Woźniak,2006).Innovativeproducts,togetherwithtraditionalones,areindicatedasthebasicinstrumentsforcompetitivenessoftheSMEsectorinthefoodindustry(Briz&deFelipe,2006).Researchindicatesthatnewexperiencesrelatedtoinnovationsinfoodproductssignificantlyinfluencethepurchasebehaviorofcustomers(Lundahl,2012).

Theobjectiveofthepresentworkistoshowtheroleofsmallandmediumenterprises in thePolish food industry.Thepaperpresentsacomparativeanalysisof this industrysector for2005‐2015.ThepaperusesdatapublishedbytheCentralStatisticalOfficeofPoland,EurostatandSMEandfoodindustryliterature.

ThecaseofPoland

Businesses are the main driving factor in creating the grossdomesticproduct(GDP)ofPoland.Theyarecurrentlyproducingsome74%oftheGDP(versus70%10yearsago).TheSMEsectorhasthemostimportantrole,generatinghalfoftheGDP,including31%generatedby


28

smalland11%bymediumenterprises.In2015therewere1.91millionnon‐subsidizedbusinessesinPoland,comparedto1.73millionin2010.Businessesemployingupto9personsarepredominant(96%)andemploy39%ofthe9.4millionpeopleemployedincorporatesector(Figure1).Thepercentageofothertypesofenterprises(small3.0%,medium0.9%andlarge0.2%)remainsunchangedforyears.Theemployment figure inmicroenterprisesrises(by0.6percentagepointorp.p.since2010)asitdoes in large entities (by 0.8 p.p.).Within the value of production ofbusinesses(735.71billionEuroin2015)theSMEsectorhasthelargestshare (57.3%) including 28.8% created in micro‐enterprises. Thoughwhenthetotalrevenueofenterprisesisconsidered(975.24billionEuroin2015)theSMErevenuesaccountfor55.8%(andmicro‐enterprisesforjust22.0%).Thepercentageofassetsheldbycompaniesemployingupto250peopleisevenlower.Theyheldjust41.9%(194.26billionEuro)of fixedassets in2015, and41.2% (148.44billionEuro) in2010.TheshareofSMEsininvestmentexpensesfellfrom47.4%(15billionEuro)to41.8%(18.16billionEuro).

Figure1.BasicdataonPolishenterprisesdividedbysizeclasses.

Source:author’sworkbasedonCSO

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2010

Number of enterprises 2015

2010

Number of persons employed…

2010

Production value 2015

2010

Total revenues 2015

2010

Gross value of fixed assets 2015

2010

Investment outlays 2015

%

9 and less 10‐49 50‐249 250 and more


29

The food industryplaysan important role innationaleconomyandsatisfactionofneedsofthesociety.Mostimportantlythefoodindustry,systematicallyandmeetingconsumerdemandsofthepopulation,suppliesthemarketwithfoodinsufficientquantity,qualityandrequiredtypes.Thusitcontributestoaccomplishmentofnationalfoodsecurity (Kapusta,2012). The industry is characterized by high risk of business activitylinkedwithchangesinthesupplyofmaterials(seasonalandlong‐termvariations)andtheperishablenatureofmaterialsandproducts.Though,asresearchofrecentyearsproves(Kijek,2013)theinfluenceofspecificfactorsontheeconomicresultsinfoodindustryprocessingindustryisstilllowerthaninotherbranchesofprocessingindustryinthecountry.The food processing industry for agricultural products in Poland ischaracterized by fragmentation proven by the existence of a largenumberofsmallfacilities,scatteredthroughoutthewholeterritory.Thisis the result of historic conditions, similar to the location of a highernumberoffoodprocessingplantsintheWestthanintheEastpartofthecountry.InrecentyearsonecanobserveaconcentrationofPolishfoodindustry. This concentration process is the result of the scale effect,operatingcostandprofitabilitydependingontheproductionscale.Theconcentrationof foodindustrythusfollowstheconcentrationtrendinagriculture(Urban2014).

Themaintaskoffoodindustryenterprisesistoensurecountry’sfoodsecurity.Oneoftheelementsofthissecurityisthephysicalavailabilityoffood.Theachievementandensuringofthephysicalavailabilityoffoodshould be the overriding objective of each country's food policy. Theglobalfoodcrisisof2007/2008,initiatedbyariseinfoodpricesfurtherstressedtheimportanceofself‐sufficiencyforprovisionoffoodineverycountry,independentfromitslevelofeconomicdevelopment(Kwaseketal.,2015).Self‐sufficiencylevelcanbedeterminedbycomparingthe


30

nationalproductionwiththeconsumptionofagriculturalproducts3.Thedegreeoffoodself‐sufficiencyinPolandishighandisfurtherimprovedbygrowingnationalproductionvolumesofbasicagriculturalproducts(Table1).

Table1.Basicagriculturalbalances(thoutonnes)

Specification

2005 2015

Production ImportsUse ExportsSurplus/Deficit

Production ImportsUse ExportsSurplus/Deficit

Cerealsa 24,900 724 25,236 1,275 ‐336 27,325 1,089 21,952 6,208 5,373

Vegetablesb 5,458 239 4,849 848 609 5,607 588 5,144 1,051 463

Fruitc 2,922 876 3,310 488 ‐388 4,189 859 3,953 1,095 236

Vegetablefatsadoils 540 500 837 183 ‐297 1,100 645 1,110 630 ‐10

Meat 3,443 300 3,099 668 344 4,763 816 3,300 2,270 1,463

Cows’milkd 11,575 295 9,414 2,484 2161 12,859 1,630 11,045 3,485 1,814

aIncludingcerealmixedforgrainandgraindesignatedforprocessingbIncludingvegetablesdesignatedforprocessingcIncludingfruitdesignatedforprocessingdIncludingmilkdesignatedforprocessingin;millionlitres


InmanyEUcountries,includingPoland,thefoodindustryhasasignificantpositioninprocessingindustry,asmeasuredbytheshareinturnover or employment (Figure 2). This situation also pertains toIreland,Denmark,Latvia,TheNetherlands,Lithuania,andUnitedKingdom.France,Greece,Belgium,Bulgaria,Romania,Cyprus,Portugal,SpainandCroatiawhicharealsocharacterizedbyahighshareoffoodenterprisesinthetotalnumberofindustrialenterprises.Thenumberofenterprises

3 The national use depicts the division of production to main consumers and finaldestinations.Itincludeseconomicexpenses(e.g.sowing,foddermaterial),consumptionofproductsbypopulation,industrialprocessingandlossesinproductionandhandling.


31

oftheEUfoodsectoralsodemonstrateshowimportantthissectorisfortheeconomiesoftherespectivecountries.Therewere290.3thousandfoodmanufacturing enterprises in 2014.Only 0.9%of them are largeenterprises. Over 95% are the micro enterprises (80.5%) or smallenterprises (14.8%). This structure of food industry enterpriseswithpredominanceofSMEsischaracteristicforallEUcountries.FranceandItaly are the leaderswhen the number of food processing companies(41%ofallEUbusinessesarelocatedthere)(Figure3).Polandissixthinthisaspect.

Figure2.Theshareoffoodindustryintotalprocessingindustry(%)

*NodataforMalta

Source:author’sworkbasedonEurostatdatabase

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

France

Greece

Belgium

Luxembourg

Bulgaria

Romania

Cyprus

Portugal

Spain

Croatia

Austria

Italy

Hungary

Germany

EU

Slovenia

Ireland

Den

mark

Latvia

Netherlands

Lithuania

Finland

Estonia

Swed

en

Poland

United

Kingdom

Czech Rep

ublic

Slovakia

%

Number of enterprises Turnover Employment


32

Figure3.Thenumberoffoodindustryenterprisesbysizeclass


ResultandDiscussionOneofthedeterminingfactorsfortherevivaloftheSMEsectorin

marketeconomiesattheendof20thcenturywasthediversificationofdemand. Market segmentation occurs as a result of higher individualincomethatallowsanevergrowingnumberofconsumerstosatisfytheirneedfordiversity(Borowiecki&Siuta‐Tokarska,2008).Marketsegmentationrevealsniches,consumerswithdistinctiveandcomplexsetofneeds,whoarewillingtopaymoretosatisfythem(Kotler,1994).ResearchconductedinrecentyearsindicatesthatPolishconsumersearchesforlocalPolishproducts

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

55000

60000

65000France

Italy

Germany

Spain

Greece

Poland

Portugal

Czech Republic

Romania

United

Kingdom

Belgium

Hungary

Bulgaria

Netherlands

Swed

en

Austria

Croatia

Slovakia

Slovenia

Finland

Ireland

Lithuania

Den

mark

Latvia

Cyprus

Estonia

Malta

Luxembourg

9 and less 10‐4950‐249 250 and more


33

(Angowski&Lipowski,2014).Moreandmore the consumersdo turntheirattentiontotheenvironmentalaspectlikewhetherthematerialscomefromaregionwithacleannaturalenvironment,acharacteristicthatisstillattributedtoPoland,andthusto–amongotherfeatures–toabettertasteoftheproduct(s).Theyalsoseetheeconomicdimensionofconsumerethnocentrism,whichformsasimilarlyimportantaspect,asthecreatorsofthisnotionbelieve(Ship&Sharma,1987).Thispertainstouseoflocalproductionmeans(workforceandcapital)and increases theeffectsof thatproductioninformofsalesrevenueoflocalprocessingplant.Theconsumerethnocentrisminrelationtofoodandagriculturalproductswasalreadyreported60yearsagobyPilgrim(1957)whobelievedthatnotonlythefoodpropertiesandperson‐relatedfactors,butalsotheenvironmentalfactors influence the foodpurchasingdecisions (Steenkamp,1997).OfcoursetheresearchsuggeststhatthetypeofattitudesdemonstratedbyPolish society are differentiated (Sajdakowska andGutkowska, 2014),yetstableforsometimenow(WanatandStefańska,2014).

Polish consumers also turn their attention to another, equallyimportant,aspectofproductsfromlocalfoodprocessingplants,consideringmainlythetraditionandtheirmanufacturingexperience.Forexample theyonlyconsiderquark(dairyproduct)tobetraditionalifitismanufacturedbyanationaldairycooperative4,whichinfluencesthemarket5.ThedairycooperativemovementhasalonghistoryinPoland(datingbackto1870s),which results in experienceand competences thatbuild its credibilityandtrust(Zuba‐Ciszewska,2016).Almost61%ofthe241dairyenterprisesinPolandarecooperatives.Thereareatleastseveraldairyenterprises

4http://www.forbes.pl/mlekovita‐mlekpol‐polmlek‐polskie‐mleczarnie‐kosza‐zagranicznych‐konkurentow,artykuly,200464,1,3.html

5Amongothers thiswas thecause formanymultinationals toabandon thenationaldairymarketoratleastsomeofitssegments,e.g.withthe2016liquidationofDanoneplantinWarsawandZottplantinRacibórz.MlekovitaboughttheBaranówplantfromHochland,PolmlektookoverthedairyprocessingplantsfromDutchFrieseninMława,AustrianDr.OetkerinMakówMazowieckiandtheDanishArlaFoodsinGościna.


34

in every region. The social image of Polish agricultural and foodcooperatives as socially entrusted entities constitute their chance atattaining lasting competitive advantages (Brodziński, 2014). AdditionallythelocalproductsarealsoimportantforPolishretailnetworks.Thevaluable,frequentlyunique,advantagesthattheyoffertothecustomersrepresentoneofthetoolsforcounteringthemarketstrengthofmultinationalretailcorporations(Kowalska,2012).Theseadvantagesincludethelocaloriginoffoodproducts.Themajorityoffoodproductsareperishableconsumergoods.That iswhy the continuityand timeofdelivery that localmanufacturingplantscanofferrepresentanessentialfactorintheirsale.Theseentitiesform theLocal FoodSystem (LFS). It is a system inwhich the food isproduced,processedandsoldwithinalimitedgeographicalarea(Kneafseyetal.,2013).Thissystemcanalsorepresentachancefordevelopmentofagriculture(Rossetal.,1999;Marsdenetal.,2000).Localproductscanimprovethefoodsecurityofalocalcommunity,byimprovingitsaccesstofreshfood(Martinezetal.,2010).

The food industry has a significant, yet decreasing position inindustrialprocessinginPoland(fig.4).Foodprocessingenterprisesaccountfor8.3%ofall industrialprocessingenterprises6,andhavethe largestsharewhenthetotalvaluesofsoldproducts(18.8%)andemployment(17.1%)areconsidered.

EvenwiththenumberoffoodprocessingenterprisesdroppedinPolandby12%tojust16thousandenterprisesbetween2005and2015(Table 2) the effect of their business activity, measured by the soldproductsvalue,increasedby60%to48.6billionEuro.Theindustryalsorecorded a 5.3% decrease in employment figure, to 427.2 thousandemployees.

6Theyareprecededbyenterprisesmanufacturingmetalproducts(17.9%),businessesactive in repairs, servicing and installation of machines and devices (14.2%) andmanufacturersofwooden,cork,strawandwickergoods(9.0%).


35

Figure4.Theshareoffoodprocessinginindustrialprocessing


Table2.Thestructureoffoodindustryenterprisesbytheiremploymentfigure

SPECIFICATION YearsEntitieswiththefollowingnumberofpaidemployees

9andless 10‐49 50‐249 250andmore Total

Numberofentities

2005 11,511 5,201 1,195 275 18,182

2010 9,503 5,009 1,178 281 15,971

2015 10,263 4,376 1,108 281 16,028

Soldproduction(mlneuro,current

prices)

2005 2,874.0 4,751.2 8,532.3 14,079.6 30,237.2

2010 2,147.1 5,845.9 10,285.7 21,557.2 39,835.9

2015 2,412.9 6,502.3 12,862.6 26,774.4 48,552.2

Employment(thou)

2005 64.4 96,3 129.8 160.6 451.1

2010 47.2 98,0 126.8 170.0 442.0

2015 41.8 82,6 121.4 181.4 427.2


0 5 10 15 20 25

Number of entities

Sold production

Employment

%

2015 2010 2005


36

Thesechangesaredifferentwhenthetypeofenterpriseisconsidered.Thenumberoflargeenterprisesincreasedwhilefortheremainingclassesdecreasesinnumberwererecorded(withthehighest16%decreaseinthe caseof small enterprises).All the typesof enterprises, apart frommicro‐enterprises, also registered an increase of the value of soldproducts,withthehighestchangeincaseoflargeenterprises(by90.2%).The value of sold products increased by almost 37% in case of smallenterprises,andbyoverahalfinmiddleones.Theemploymentonlyroseincaseoflargeenterprises(byalmost13%).

Thelargestgroupoffoodindustryenterprisesisthatemployingupto9people(64%in2015).Theyonlygenerate1/20ofthevalueofsoldproductsandconcentrateabout10%oftheemploymentfigureofthe industry (Table 3). Even with the constant share of this type ofenterprisesinthetotalnumberonecanobserveasignificantdecreaseintheirshareofproductionandemployment.Over1/3ofallcompaniesaresmall and medium enterprises, and in the last ten years their sharedroppedby1p.p..Alsotheirsharesinvalueofsoldproductsandemploymentdropped(by4p.p.and2.3p.p.,respectively).Evenif largeenterprisesaccountforjust2%ofthetotalnumberoffoodprocessingbusinesses,theyalsoaccountforover55%ofvalueofsoldproducts(thatis8.5p.p.morethanin2005).Thesebusinessesalsoimprovedtheirpositionasthemainemployeroftheindustry.

Table3.Thestructureoffoodindustryenterprisesbyemploymentfigure(%)

SPECIFICATION Years

Entitieswiththefollowingnumberofpaidemployees


Entities

2005 63.3 28.6 6.6 1.5 100.0

2010 59.5 31.4 7.4 1.8 100.0

2015 64.0 27.3 6.9 1.8 100.0


37

SPECIFICATION Years

Entitieswiththefollowingnumberofpaidemployees


Soldproduction

2005 9.5 15.7 28.2 46.6 100.0

2010 5.4 14.7 25.8 54.1 100.0

2015 5.0 13.4 26.5 55.1 100.0

Employment

2005 14.3 21.3 28.8 35.6 100.0

2010 10.7 22.2 28.7 38.5 100.0

2015 9.8 19.3 28.4 42.5 100.0


Thustheconcentrationofmanufacturingprocessesishighinthefoodindustry.Iftheshareofmicro‐enterprisesisomitted,50%to80%ofthesoldproductsinrecentyearsweregeneratedbythemediumandlargeenterprises(Table4).

Table4.Theconcentrationofsoldproductsinthefoodindustryenterprises*

SpecificationEntitieswithshareinsoldproductionvalue**amountingto

50% 80%

Numberofentities2010 151 772

2015 143 659

Averagepaidemployment(thous.)

2010 111.6 223.4

2015 119.8 224.1

*Dataconcerntheeconomicentitiesemployingmorethan9persons

**Incurrentprices



38

Thelargestnumbersoffoodindustryenterprisesinthecountryarefoundamongbakeryandfarinaceousproductscompanies(6355),meatprocessing, conservation andproduction (2730 companies) and thoseactive inprocessingand conservationof fruits andvegetables (1085).Thetotalnumberofbusinessesfromthesethreebranchesequalsto85%of all remaining representatives of main branches of food industrynationwide.Theshareofthesebranchesinthemicro‐enterprisesectorisover69%andtheshareofthewholeSMEsectorasmuchas98.5%.Dairies(643)processingcow,sheepandgoatmilkarealsonumerous,followedbybeveragemanufacturingbusinesses (601) and companiesmanufacturinggrainproducts,starchandstarchproducts(590).

Table5.ThenumberofcompaniesinselectedbranchesofPolishfoodindustryin2015

Numberofenter‐prises

Processingandpreserving Manufacture

meatandproduc‐tionofmeat

products

fish,crusta‐ceans

andmol‐luscs

fruitandvegeta‐bles

vegetableandanimaloilsandfats

dairyprod‐ucts

grainmillproducts,

starchesandstarchprod‐

ucts

bakeryandfari‐naceousproducts

bever‐ages

Total 2,730 301 1,085 158 643 590 6,355 601

9andless 1,761 174 783 131 430 460 4,500 452

10‐49 585 63 155 17 73 87 1,495 78

50‐249 294 53 120 7 105 37 320 48

250andmore 90 11 27 3 35 6 40 23


Eachbranchofthefoodprocessingindustryisdominatedbymicro‐

enterprisesthataccountforfrom58%offishprocessingbusinessesupto83%of thosemanufacturingoilsandfats(Table6).Theclassof


39

smallenterprisesaccountsfor11%to24%,themiddle‐sizedcompaniesfor4%to18%andthelargecompaniesforlessthan5.4%.ThismakestheSMEs(togetherwithmicro‐enterprises)dominantineverybranch,accounting for 94.6% (manufacture of dairy products) to 99.4%(manufactureofbakeryandfarinaceousproducts).

Table6.Thestructureofenterprisesindifferentbranches

ofPolishfoodindustryin2015(%)




products

fish,crusta‐ceans

andmol‐luscs

fruitandvegeta‐bles

vegetableandanimaloilsandfats

dairyprod‐ucts

grainmillproducts,

starchesandstarchproducts

bakeryandfarina‐ceous

products

bever‐ages

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

9andless 64.5 57.8 72.2 82.9 66.9 78.0 70.8 75.2

10‐49 21.4 20.9 14.3 10.8 11.4 14.7 23.5 13.0

50‐249 10.8 17.6 11.1 4.4 16.3 6.3 5.0 8.0

250andmore 3.3 3.7 2.5 1.9 5.4 1.0 0.6 3.8


Although the SMEs dominate the food industry their share inrevenue is significantly lower (Table 7) and varies in the respectivebranchesfrom20.5%(beveragemanufacturing)to75.2%(manufactureof grain mill products, starches and starch products). The micro‐enterpriseshavethelowestshareinrevenues(1%to12.7%).


40

Table7.TheturnoverstructureintheenterprisesofdifferentbranchesofPolishfoodindustryin2015(%)




products

fish,crustaceansandmolluscs

fruitand

vegeta‐bles

vegeta‐bleandanimaloilsandfats

dairyprod‐ucts

grainmillproducts,starchesandstarchproducts

bakeryand

farina‐ceous

products

bever‐ages

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

9andless 3.9 3.1 5.6 4.7 1.0 7.6 12.7 0.9

10‐49 11.3 7.5 11.2 12.6 3.3 24.8 22.0 5.5

50‐249 27.1 27.5 41.4 30.0 27.2 42.7 30.0 14.1250andmore 57.7 61.9 41.8 52.8 68.5 24.8 35.3 79.5


Whenitcomestotheshareinemployment(Table8)onlythreebranches

aredominatedbylargecompanies(processingandpreservingofmeatandproductionofmeatproducts,manufactureofdairyproducts,manufactureofbeverages).IntheremainingbranchesthemajorityfallsintheSMEcategory,withpredominanceofcompaniesemploying50to249people.Table8.Theemploymentstructureinenterprisesofdifferentbranches

ofPolishfoodindustryin2015(%)




products


fruitand

vegeta‐bles


dairyprod‐ucts


bakeryand

farina‐ceous

products

bever‐ages

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

9andless 5.9 3.5 8.6 12.5 3.7 14.3 20.3 6.5

10‐49 12.0 8.6 11.3 14.1 4.6 19.5 30.4 7.6


41




products


fruitand

vegeta‐bles


dairyprod‐ucts


bakeryand

farina‐ceous

products

bever‐ages

50‐249 27.1 38.2 42.6 25.3 33.5 37.8 30.7 22.2250andmore 55.1 49.6 37.5 48.1 58.2 28.3 18.5 63.7


TheSMEsarecharacterizedbyahigherabilitytoadapttotheeverchangingeconomicsituation.Thisistheresultoftheirhigherelasticitywhencomparedwithlargecompanies,especiallyinthecriticalmomentsfortheeconomy.Theirbehaviorismorefocusedoncustomers’currentneedsandontheeconomicconditionswhencomparedtolargecompanieswiththeirlong‐termstrategies(Thurik,1996).Smallandmediumenterprisescanefficientlyentermarketniches,increasingthediversityofavailableproductsandservices(CarreeandThuric,1999).Thisisfrequently linkedwith the necessity to conduct the required investments. In 2015 theinvestmentexpenses7offoodindustrySMEstotaled729.3millionEuro,35.7%of the totalexpensesof the industry (Figure5). In the last fiveyearsthevalueofinvestmentspendingfortheSMEsofthefoodindustryincreasedbyathird.Stillthesmallcompaniesrecordeda7.8%decreaseininvestments(to175.4millionEuro)andthemediumenterprisesincreasedthembyasmuchas52.5% (to almost617millionEuro).That iswhywithintheinvestmentspendingstructureforSMEsofthefoodindustryasmuchas78%fallsinformediumenterprises,andjust22%isaccrued

7Financialexpensesorcontributionsinkindthataimatcreationofnewfixedassetsor the improvement of existing ones (rebuilding, extension, reconstruction ormodernization)ofexistingobjectsincludedinfixedassetsandthesocalledspendingforinitialequipmentofinvestments.


42

inthesmallenterprises.Thelargest,growing(from61%in2010to64%in2015)proportionofinvestmentspendingisformachineries,technicaldevices and tools. Among the factors influencing this is the growingconsumptionofthesefixedassets(59.8%in2010and62.5%in2015).Thesecondplaceininvestmentspending,witharelativelyconstantshareof29%,isoccupiedbybuildingsandstructures,andthelast,withdecreasingsharebythetransportationmeans.

Figure5.Investmentspendingofsmallandmediumenterprisesoffoodindustry(incurrentprices)


32

22

68

78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2010 2015

%

mln euro

10‐49 50‐249 10‐49 50‐249


43

ConclusionsThePolishfoodindustryincludesover16thousandenterprises,

whichrecordedagrowthinresultsoftheiractivities,intheformofthevalueofproductssold,of60%between2005and2016(to48.6billionEuro).Thelargestgroupoftheenterprisesinfoodindustryaretheentitiesthatemployupto9people(64%in2015).Theirroleinmanufactureandemploymentdecreases,similartotheshareofsmallandmediumenterprisesthataccountforoverathirdofallenterprises.Thegradualconcentrationinthesectorisparticularlyvisiblethroughthefactthatlargeenterprisesthataccountforlessthan2%offoodprocessingbusinessesareresponsiblefor55%ofsales(thatis8.5percentagepointsmorethanin2005).Eachofthebranchesoffoodindustryisdominatedbymicro‐enterprises(58%to 83%) and together with the small and medium enterprises theyaccountfor94.6%(manufactureofdairyproducts)to99.4%(manufactureof bakery and farinaceous products). Even with the SME segment(includingmicro)enterprisesdominatingthefoodindustry,theirshareinrevenuesissignificantlylower.InmostofthefoodindustrybranchesthemajorityofemploymentfallsintheSMEsector,withthecrucialroleplayedbycompaniesemploying50to249people.

The food industry in Poland participates in ensuring the foodsecurityofthecountry.Itissubjecttotheglobalconcentrationphenomenon,yetitisstillfragmentedandscattered.Thisalsohaspositiveaspects.Localprocessingplantssecurethecontinuityandfastnessofdeliveries,whichisimportantwhenthecharacteristicsoftheseproductsareconsidered.Localproducts improve the food security of local community by improvingaccessibilitytofreshfood.Theyalsomeetthecustomerexpectationstoaccess the products of local manufacturers, characterized by theirmanufacturingtraditionandexperience.Smallandmediumenterprisescaneffectivelypenetratemarketniches,increasingthediversityofproducts,frequentlyinnovativeones,forexamplemilkforlactose‐intolerantpersons.They are able to do that, among others, because of growing due toincreasinginvestmentexpenditures.


44

REFERENCES

Angowski, M., Lipowski, M. (2014), “The conditions of the selection of food

productsandplacesofpurchase”,MarketingiRynek,no.6,p.15.Borowiecki,R.,Siuta‐Tokarska,B.(2008),Problemsoffunctioninganddevelopment

of small andmedium enterprises in Poland. Synthesis of research anddirectionsofaction,Difin,Warsaw.

Briz,J.anddeFelipe,I.(2006),“Innovationandtradition‐thetwobasicinstrumentsinSMEtocompeteinEUfoodmarket”,inSikora,T.andStrada,A.(Ed.),ThefoodindustryinEurope.TraditionandInnovation,CracowUniversityofEconomics,Cracow,p.33.

Brodziński,M.G.(2014),FacesofPolishruralcooperatives.Genesis‐development‐thefuture,Frel,Warsaw.

Carree,M.,Thuric,R. (1999), “Industrial structureandeconomicgrowth”, inAudretsch,D.B.,Thurik,R.,Innovation,IndustryEvolutionandEmployment,CambridgeUniversityPress,p.106.

CSOhttp://stat.gov.pl/(accessedonJune10th,2017).http://www.forbes.pl/mlekovita‐mlekpol‐polmlek‐polskie‐mleczarnie‐kosza‐

zagranicznych‐konkurentow,artykuly,200464,1,3.html(accessedonJune5th,2017).

https://www.mr.gov.pl/media/14840/Plan_na_rzecz_Odpowiedzialnego_Rozwoju_prezentacja.pdf(accessedonJune12th,2017).

http://www.forbes.pl/mlekovita‐mlekpol‐polmlek‐polskie‐mleczarnie‐kosza‐zagranicznych‐konkurentow,artykuly,200464,1,3.html (accessed onJune18th,2017).

Kapusta,F.(2012),Agrobiznes,Difin,Warsaw.Kijek,A.(2013),Sectorriskoftheprocessingindustry.Modelingandevaluation,

UMCS,Lublin.Kneafsey,M.etal.(2013),ShortFoodSupplyChainsandLocalFoodSystemsin

theEU.AStateofPlayoftheirSocio‐EconomicCharacteristics,EC,Luxembourg.Kotler, P. (1994),Marketing, analysis, planning, implementation and control,

Gebethner&Ska,Warsaw.


45

Kowalska,K.(2012),DevelopmentofPolishretailchainsasawaytolimitthemarketpowerofmultinationalcorporations,Difin,Warsaw.

Kwasek,M.etal.(2015),AnalysisoffoodsecurityinPoland,IERiGŻ‐PIB,Warsaw.Lundahl,D. (2012),Breakthrough foodproduct innovation.Throughemotions

research,PublishedbyElsevierInc.,Oxford.Makieła,Z.(2008),RegionalEntrepreneurship,Difin,Warsaw.Marsden, T., Banks, J., Bristow, G. (2000), “Food Supply Chain Approaches:

ExploringtheirRoleinRuralDevelopment”,SociologiaRuralis,No.40,pp.424‐438.

Martinez,S.etal.(2010),“LocalFoodSystems:Concepts,Impacts,andIssues”,EconomicResearchReport,No.97,U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,pp.3,47.

Ross, N.J., et al. (1999), “Trying and Buying Locally Grown Produce at theWorkplace: Results of a Marketing Intervention”, American Journal ofAlternativeAgriculture,No.14,pp.171‐179.

Sajdakowska,M.,Gutkowska,K.(2014),„Ethnocentricattitudesofconsumersinthefoodmarket”,MarketingiRynek,no.6,p.676.

Shimp,T.A.,Sharma,S. (1987), “ConsumerEthnocentrism:ConstructionandValidationoftheCETSCALE”,JournalofMarketingResearch,No.24,pp.280‐289.

Steenkamp,J.‐B.E.M.(1997),“DynamicsinConsumerBehaviorwithRespecttoAgriculturalandFoodProducts”inWierenga,B.etal.(Ed.),AgriculturalMarketingandConsumerBehaviorinaChangingWorld,SpringerUS,NewYork,pp.143‐188.

Thurik,R.(1996),“EntrepreneurshipandEconomicGrowth”,inAcs,Z.J.,Carlsson,B.,Thurik,R.,SmallBusinessintheModernEconomy,Oxford,BasilBlackwellPublishers,p.147.

Urban,S. (ed.) (2014),Agribusinessandbiobusiness.Theoryandpractice,WrocławUniversityofEconomics,Wroclaw.

Wanat,T.,Stefańska,M.(2014),“Socio‐demographicdeterminantsofethnocentrismontheexampleofPoland”,MarketingiRynek,no.6,p.807.

Woźniak,M.G.(2006),DevelopmentofsmallandmediumenterprisessectorinPolandandeconomicgrowth,CracowUniversityofEconomics,Cracow.

Zuba‐Ciszewska,M.(2016),“Thetrustinthecreationofthevalueofthecooperative”,Studia Ekonomiczne. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego wKatowicach,no.259,p.182.


ETHICALBEHAVIOROFROMANIANSTUDENTS.DOESGENDERMATTER?

MANUELALUPU1

ABSTRACT.Thepresentresearchisfocusedonaquantitativeanalysisregardingtheethicalattitudesofstudents,futurepractitioners,onthestudents’ perception towards some ethically questionable practices,withthespecificaimofidentifyingpossibledifferencesamonggroupswith respect to gender. The practical importance of the applicativestudy is illustrated by the confirmation of the idea, present inmanystudies,accordingtowhichmaleparticipantshavemoreunethicallyascompared to femaleparticipantsand the fact thatunethical attitudesacquiredwhileatuniversitycontinueaftergraduation,intheprofessionalactivity.Keywords:businessethics,ethicalbehavior,genderdifferences,Romanianstudents’attitudeonethicsJELClassification:M19

Recommededcitation:Lupu,M.,EthicalBehaviorofRomanianStudents.DoesGenderMatter?,StudiaUBBNegotia,vol.62,issue3(September),2017,pp.49‐67.

1AssociatedLecturer,Dr.,Babeş‐BolyaiUniversityfromCluj‐Napoca,FacultyofBusiness,DepartmentofBusiness,[email protected]

MANUELALUPU

48

IntroductionThecollapseoftheBerlinWallinNovember1989markednotonly

thebeginningoftherapiddeclineofthecommunistideology,butopenedtheworldtoamarketwhichhadremainedinaneconomicvacuumforover four decades. Since then, business ethics in former communistcountriesundergoingtheprocessoftransition,havebecomeanincreasingchallengeforWesternenterprisesdoingbusinesshere.InRomania,weconsiderthatthetopicofbusinessethics,initscurrentmeaning,isnotolderthanadecadeintheeconomicandacademicclimate.SometwentyyearsagothedomainofbusinessethicswaspracticallyinexistentinRomania,asa consequence of economic and political circumstances of this formercommunistcountrywithatyrannical formoftotalitarianism.Afterthe1989revolution,Romanianswere intenselypreoccupiedbythevulgarinstrumentofdailyeconomicexchanges–themoney,withnoattentiontothemoralorimmoralnatureofgettingmoney.

Sincetheeconomiccrisisin2009,topicsrelatedtobusinessethicshave become more discussed not only in the news, but also in theacademicworld.Inanattemptofsendingmoreethicalstudentsintheworkplace,facultieshaveintroducedmoreethicsrelatedcourses.Inthissense, the present study tries to highlight the importance of creatingethicalspecialistsinthebusinessworldandtodeterminewhichvariablesareimportantinmodellingtheethicalbehavior.

The present research is focused on a quantitative analysisregardingtheethicalattitudesofstudents, futurepractitioners,onthestudents’perceptiontowardssomeethicallyquestionablepractices,withthespecificaimof identifyingpossibledifferencesamonggroupswithrespecttogender.

Thepracticalimportanceoftheapplicativestudyisillustratedbytheconfirmationoftheidea,presentinmanystudies,accordingtowhichunethicalattitudesacquiredwhileatuniversitycontinueaftergraduation,intheprofessionalactivity.


49

Thispaperfurtherdiscussestheliteraturereviewwithregardtotheunethicalbehaviorofstudents,followedbytheresearchmethodology,theresultsofthestudyandconclusions.

LiteraturereviewIn this context, of great interest is the way in which students,

future specialists are educated for implementing an ethical climate inbusiness at the moment when they are absorbed in the work place.Representingthenewmanagers’generation,businessstudentsareagroupwithapotentiallypowerfulimpactontheeverydaybusinessactivityandalsoontheethicalprinciplesgoverningthebusinessworld.

Itisassumedthatbusinessstudentsbehavemoreunethicallyascomparedtostudentswhohaveadifferentmajor,becausetheywanttoobtainhighergrades.Ifthisweretrue,thereareseriousimplicationsforthe students’ future professional activity, because there are data thatpositivelycorrelateunethicalbehaviorintheworkplacewithunethicalbehaviorinschool.InastudyonMBA(MasterinBusinessAdministration)students,Sims(1993)highlightedthestongpositivecorrelationbetweenexamcheatingandunethicalbehaviorintheworkplace.

Pastresearch(Lawson,2004)hasrevealedacorrelationbetweenacademicandbusinessethics.Lawsonstatesthatstudentsbelievethatthereisneedforethicalbehaviorinabusinesssettingandtheiractionsinanacademicsetting.Alsothestudystatesthatstudentsbelievethatbusinesspeoplefailtoactinanethicalmannerandthattheymayneedtoactunethicallytoadvancetheircareers.

Nonis and Swift (2001) found that studentswho believed thatcheating,ordishonestactsareacceptableweremorelikelytoengageinthesedishonestbehaviors.Additionally,studentswhoengagedindishonestactsincollegeclassesweremorelikelytoengageindishonestactsattheworkplace.

MANUELALUPU

50

Informercomunistcountries,theuniversitysystemisimpactedbycorruptionandacademicdishonesty.Romaniadoesnotconstituteanexceptiontothisnegativetendency.Romaniancorruptionandacademicdishonestyischaracterisedbybribingtheprofessorsinordertopasstheexams,payinganillegalfeetobeadmittedatuniversity,payingfortheissueofanuniversitydiploma,thepresenceoffavoritismetc.(Miroiuetal.2005).Attheirturn,studentswhoareencouragedbytheunethicalbehavioroftheirprofessors,cheatinexams,plagiarize,selldissertationsetc.Inamorerecentstudy,Hermkens&Luca(2016)identifyedthefollowingstudent’smotivationsforcheating:noreasons;thesubjectistoodifficult;insufficienttimeforstudy;variousobstacles;ahighergrade;keepmyfreeoftuitionseat;togetascholarshipandbecauseteachersallowit.

AcademicfraudhasalsobeenanalysedbyTudoreletal.(2007,p.715)in relationwith the characteristics that raise the probability of cheatingduringexamswiththeconclusionthat„extraprofessionalactivities,suchaspartiesandgatheringwithfriends,internetsurfing,videogamestendtoincreasetheprobabilityofcheatingatanexam.Moretimeastudentallocatestotheseactivities,morelikelytofraudtheexam”,showingthattheenvironmentdoeshaveaninfluenceuponthewayweact.

Previousstudies(Teixeira&Rocha,2010)showthatinSouthernEuropean countries, including Romania, the probability of cheating ismuchhigherascomparedtostudentswhoareenrolledinschoolslocatedinScandinaviancountries,theUSandBritishIslesBlocks.Onaditinctlydifferent level, however, students enrolled in schools inWestern andespecially Eastern European countries reveal statistically significanthigherpropensitiestowardscommittingacademicfraud.

Inthiscontextweconsiderit isvery importanttoestablishthewayinwhichRomanianstudentsseethemselvesasrelatedtounethicalbehavior,thestudybeingrealisedonasampleofconsiderabledimensions;moreovertherelevanceofthestudyisalsorelatedtothefactthattherearefewstudiesthathavemadesuchananalysisonRomanianstudents


51

(Bageacetal.2011;McGee,2006;Teixeira&Rocha,2010;Teodorescu&Andrei,2009).

Ontheotherhand,groundedonthepreviousresearchrelatedtothedistinctionbasedongenderandtheethicalbehavior,weassumethatfemale participants in the study have higher standards of ethics ascomparedtomaleparticipants.

Academicdishonesty is influencedbyvariablessuchasgender,age,schoolperformance,parents’levelofeducationandextracurricularactivity(Teodorescu&Andrei,2009).Previousresearchrevealledthatmalestudentsbehavemoreunethicallythanfemalestudents,thosewithlower grade‐point averages would more easily engage in unethicalbehaviorsandstudentswhoseparentshaveahigherlevelofeducationwouldbehavemoreethically(McCabe&Trevino,1997).

The gender difference related to ethical behavior has beendiscussedinnumerousstudies(Betzetal.1989;Ruegger&King,1992;Khazanch,1995;Ameenetal.1996;Jones&Kavanagh,1996;Lutharetal.1997;Dawson,1997;Hoffman,1998;Buckley,Wise&Harvey,1998;Ekin&Tezölmez,1999;Roxas&Stoneback,2004;Albaum&Peterson,2006;McCabeetal.2006;Atakanetal.2008;Chen&Tang,2006;Lund,2008;Ibrahimetal.2009;Eweje&Brunton,2010;Kum‐Lung&Teck‐Chai,2010;Bageacetal.2011;Cojuharencoetal.2012,Wang&Calvano,2015).Thevastmajorityofthesestudiesconfirmthehypothesisaccordingtowhichfemalesurveyparticipantsaresignificantlymoreethicallyinclinedthanmale survey participants and are showing a more favorable attitudetowardsethicalbehaviors.

Ontheotherhand,thestudiesthatsupporttheideathatthereisnosignifiantdifferencebetweenfemaleparticipantsandmaleparticipantsinregardstoethicalbehaviorarescarce(Jones&Kavanagh,1996;Dawson,1997;McCabeetal.2006;Lund,2008).

MANUELALUPU

52

Research Methodology Wehaveconductedasurveyat3universitiesfromCluj‐Napoca

andBaiaMare(themajorpublichighereducationinstitutionBabes‐BolyaiUniversity, Iuliu Hatieganu Medicine and Pharmacy University and aprivateoneBogdan‐VodaUniversity).Thetransversalandcorrelationalstudywillverifythefollowinghypothesis:Malestudentsaremorepronetohaveanunethicalbehaviorascomparedtofemalestudents.

Intheresearchwehaveusedthesurveymethodandasaresearchtoolthequestionnaire,namelytheStudentEthicalBehaviorQuestionnaire(SEBQ)2. This toolwas designed to evaluate the perception of ethicalbehavior by students from different faculties of Cluj‐Napoca andBaiaMare cities.Anexploratory researchhasbeenconducted, the selectedresearch method being „face to face” inquiry, as I have followed theimprovementofanswerrate.Anumberof750questionnaireshavebeenprocessed,theresultsofthesurveycontributingtotheidentificationofthewayinwhichethicsisperceivedbydifferentstudentsfromtheCluj‐NapocaandBaiaMareuniversityenvironment.Theresultsthathavebeenobtained are at least interesting, as they can be used in defining thecharactertraitsoftherespondents,sincetheethicalattitudesofthestudentswillalsoshowthemselvesatthemomenttheybecomepractitioners. OnthissampleweappliedtheSEBQtool.Thequestionnairehas14items,devidedonthreescales:

1.Attitudestowardsunethicalbehaviorinsocietywith3items:1,3,4.

2.Attitudestowardsunethicalbehaviorinprofessionwith4items:2,5,7,8.

2 Translated and adapted after: Sedmak Suzana, BojanNastav, Perceptionof ethicalbehavioramongbusinessstudiesstudents,SocialResponsibility,ProfessionalEthics,andManagement, Proceedingsof the11th InternationalConference, 2010Ankara,Turkey,24–27November2010,pag.1175‐1189


53

3.Attitudes towardsunethicalbehavior in schoolwith7 items:6,9,10,11,12,13,14.

Eachdimensionwasmeasuredusing14items,ona5pointLikertscales with anchors “1 – Completely morally unacceptable” and “5 –Completelymorallyacceptable”.Thevariablesrepresentingtheunethicalbehaviordimensionswerecomputedastheaveragescoreofalltheitemsdescribingthespecificdimensions.TheIndependendsampleTtestwasusedtodetermineiftherearestatisticallysignificantdifferences betweenfemale andmale students in regard to unethical behavior. The listedresultsareonly those that representaminimumstatisticallyacceptedvalue,thathaveap‐valueequaltoorlowerthan0,05.Thethresholdforstatisticalsignificanceof0,05iswidelyacceptedbyallmajorstatisticalpsychologyandsociologytreaties. BecauseweappliedthequestionnaireonRomanian,EnglishandFrenchlinesofstudywehaveusedtheRomanian,EnglishandFrenchversionsofthequestionnaire. Asfortheresults,thehigherthescoresintheitemsandscalesofthe questionnaire, the higher the approval of unethical behavior infaculty,professionandsociety. The raw data obtained after applying the questionnaire weresuccessivelyprocessedwithExcel2003,Excel2007andSPSS(StatisticalPackagefortheSocialSciences),version17.0.

Samplecharacteristics

Themajorityofthesubjectsstudiedarefemale,67%(503),thesamebeingthestructureofthestudentsforeachFacultyanalysed.Themaleparticipantsrepresent33%(247)ofthesamplestudied. The majority of the participants, as expected, are not married91% (683), followed by those who aremarried 6% (41), in conjugalunion2%(18),divorced1%(7)orseparatedlessthan1%(1)representtheminorityofthesubjectsstudied.

MANUELALUPU

54

Thepercentageofthesmokingparticipantsisofonefourth25%(189), three fourthsof the studentsbeingnon‐smoking students75%(561).

Themajorityoftheparticipantsarefirstyearstudents76%(570),followedbythirdyearstudents22%(162)andsecondyearstudents2%(18).TheMaster students representonly7%(50)of theparticipants;thusthemajorityofthesampleisrepresentedbyundergraduatestudents93%(700). ThemajorityoftheparticipantsstudyattheMedicineandPharmacyUniversity„IuliuHaţieganu”61%(457)and„Babeş‐Bolyai”UniversityinCluj‐Napoca 30% (224),while the participantswho study at „BogdanVodă”UniversityinBaiaMarerepresentonly9%(69).

Themajorityoftheparticipants,accordingtotheirreligiousaffiliationare Orthodox, followed by Free Thinkers, Roman‐Catholics, Muslims,AtheistsandReformed.Theremaindercultsaccountforlesssignificantquotas,asitisshowedinTable1.

Table1.Structureofthesampleaccordingtoreligionaffiliation

Religion Number Percentage(%)Orthodox 410 54,7Freethinker 70 9,3Roman‐catholic 66 8,8Muslims 45 6,0Atheist 39 5,2Reformed 34 4,5Penticostal 28 3,7Greek‐catholic 21 2,8Baptist 17 2,3Adventist 11 1,5Jews 6 0,8TheJehovah'sWitness 2 0,3GospelChristians 1 0,1Total 750 100%

Source:author’sowncalculationsbasedonsurveydata


55

AccordingtoFacultyenrollment,mostoftheparticipantsstudyatUMFCluj‐Napoca,followedbythestudentsoftheFacultyofBusinessandFaculty of Economics and Business Administration. The structure ispresentedinTable2.

Table2.ThestructureofthesampleaccordingtoFacultyaffiliation

Faculty Number Percentage(%)FacultyofBusinessUBB 143 19,1Dentistry 112 14,9GeneralMedicine 88 11,7GeneralMedicine–Frenchline 86 11,5GeneralMedicine–Englishline 83 11,1FacultyofEconomicsandBusinessAdministrationUBB

81 10,8

LicensedNurses 49 6,5ManagementUBV 45 6,0MedicalProfileCollege 39 25,2PhysicalEducationandSportUBV 19 2,5HealthManagementUBV 5 0,7Total 750 100%


Results and discussions Our results colligate with the findings of most of the other

researchonthetopicandindicatethatwomenaremoreinclinedtoactethicallythanmen,withmalestudentsreportingahigherpropensitytoengageinunethicalbehavior.

Thehypothesisofthestudyhasbeenconfirmedbytheresultsoftheempiricalstudyconductedonapopulationsampleofconsiderabledimensions.

MANUELALUPU

56

Thedataofthepresentstudyareinagreementwiththoseofmostofthestudiesonthissubjectfromtheinternationalliterature.Thus,malestudentsaremorepermissivewiththeunethicalbehavioratuniversity,attheworkplaceandinsociety,incontrasttofemalesubjects.

Relatedtothegeneralscoresofthequestionnaire,weregisteredthe highest mean scores by item regarding the unethical behavior inprofession,mainlywithreferencetocallinginsick,eventhoughnotinfactsickandleavingpersonalposttobemailedamongbusinesspost.

Regarding the unethical behavior in school/faculty, the mostfrequentlymentioneditemsaretheattitudesrelatedtowritingseminarworkforotherstudents,lookingatotherstudents’exampapersduringexam,statingfalsereasonsfornotattendingtheclasses,ascanbeeasilyobservedinTable3.

Table3.Descriptivestatisticalprocessingresults

oftherawdataofthestudy

Variable MeanStandarddeviation

1. Reportingown‐inflictedcardamagetotheinsuranceagencyasbeinginflictedbythirdparty

2,13 1,43

2. Takingofficeaccessories(pens,paper,etc.)forownhomeuse 2,01 1,04

3. Findingawallet,keepingthemoneyanddisposingofthewallet 1,32 0,76

4. Taking the newspaper from the neighbour's post-box 1,82 2

5. Callinginsick,eventhoughnotinfactsick 2,39 2

6. Forgingthestudent‐statuspapersinordertoobtainstudent‐status‐relatedbenefits(e.g.cheaperfoodinrestaurantetc.)

1,70 1

7. Leavingpersonalposttobemailedamongbusinesspost(oncompany’sexpenses)

2,11 2

8. Conductingnon‐job‐relatedactivitywhileatthejob. 2,43 2

9. Statingfalsereasonsfornotattendingclasses 2,42 2

10. Lookingatotherstudents’exampapersduringexam 2,45 2


57

Variable MeanStandarddeviation

11. Writingseminarworkforotherstudent. 2,73 3

12. Askingotherstudenttotaketheexamforyou(inyourname) 1,46 1

13. Usingunallowedtechniques(cheating)duringtheexam 1,84 2

14. Copyingseminarworkfromsources,notlistedinthebibliography

2,15 2

Unethicalbehaviorinsociety 1,71 1,85

Unethicalbehaviorinprofession 2,18 2,34

Unethicalbehaviorinschool 2,03 2,26

TotalscorequestionnaireSEBQ 28,97 28


Theunethicalbehaviorinsocietyhasthehighestscoreregarding

reporting own‐inflicted car damage to the insurance agency as beinginflictedbythirdparty.

On the other hand, the highest score of the questionnaire isrelatedtounethicalbehaviorinschool,mainlywritingseminarworkforanotherstudentandthelowestscorereferstoaskinganotherstudenttotaketheexamforyou.

These results show thatRomanian students aremoreprone tobehaveunethicallyintheworkplace,veryclosebeingalsotheunethicalbehavior inschool.Basedontheresultswecanassumethatunethicalbehaviorinschooldoeshaveaninfluenceonthewaytoday’sstudentswillbehavewhentheyfindthemselvesintheworkfield.

In Table 4 the statistical significance of the differences inresponsesamongstudentswithrespecttogendercanbeseen.

MANUELALUPU

58

Table4.Thestatisticalsignificanceofthedifferencesinresponsesbetweengenders

Levene'sTestfor

EqualityofVariances

t‐testforEqualityofMeans

F Sig.

t df

Sig.(2‐tailed)

MeanDifference

Std.ErrorDifference

95%Confidence

Intervalofthe

Difference

Lower

Upper

1. Reportingown‐inflictedcardamagetotheinsuranceagencyasbeinginflictedbythirdparty

Equal

variances

assumed

.300 .584 2.358 748 .019 .262 .111 .044 .480

2. Takingofficeaccessories(pens,paper,etc.)forownhomeuse

Equal

variances

assumed

6.403 .012 2.827 748 .005 .228 .081 .070 .386

3. Findingawallet,keepingthemoneyanddisposingofthewallet

Equal

variances

assumed

41.925 .000 3.961 748 .000 .231 .058 .117 .346

4. Takingthenewspaperfromtheneighbour'spost‐box. Eq

ual

variances

assumed

.019 .891 ‐.827 748 .409 ‐.060 .072 ‐.201 .082

5. Callinginsick,eventhoughnotinfactsick. Eq

ual

variances

assumed

4.151 .042 .510 748 .610 .043 .085 ‐.123 .210


59

Levene'sTestfor

EqualityofVariances


F Sig.

t df

Sig.(2‐tailed)

MeanDifference

Std.ErrorDifference

95%Confidence

Intervalofthe

Difference

Lower

Upper

6. Forgingthestudent‐statuspapersinordertoobtainstudent‐status‐relatedbenefits(e.g.cheaperfoodinrestaurantetc.)

Equal

variances

assumed

13.841 .000 5.878 748 .000 .455 .077 .303 .607

7. Leavingpersonalposttobemailedamongbusinesspost(oncompany’sexpenses)

Equal

variances

assumed

4.162 .042 2.600 748 .010 .207 .080 .051 .364

8. Conductingnon‐job‐relatedactivitywhileonjob. Eq

ual

variances

assumed

1.075 .300 1.888 748 .059 .149 .079 ‐.006 .303

9. Statingfalsereasonsfornotattendingtheclasses. Eq

ual

variances

assumed

2.976 .085 1.279 748 .201 .112 .088 ‐.060 .285

10. Lookingatotherstudents’exampapersduringexam. Eq

ual

variances

assumed

11.722 .001 1.633 748 .103 .151 .092 ‐.031 .333

MANUELALUPU

60

Levene'sTestfor

EqualityofVariances


F Sig.

t df

Sig.(2‐tailed)

MeanDifference

Std.ErrorDifference

95%Confidence

Intervalofthe

Difference

Lower

Upper

11. Writingseminarworkforotherstudent. Eq

ual

variances

assumed

7.477 .006 .455 748 .649 .041 .091 ‐.137 .220

12. Askingotherstudenttotaketheexamforyou(inyourname).

Equal

variances

assumed

43.711 .000 4.456 748 .000 .310 .070 .174 .447

13. Usingunallowedtechniques(cheating)duringtheexam. Eq

ual

variances

assumed

6.572 .011 2.887 748 .004 .237 .082 .076 .398

14. Copyingseminarworkfromsources,notlistedinthebibliography.

Equal

variances

assumed

17.159 .000 3.818 748 .000 .321 .084 .156 .486


Theresultsofthestudyshowthatmaleparticipantshaveahigher

propensity inagreeingwithreportingown‐inflictedcardamagetotheinsuranceagencyasbeing inflictedby thirdparty,ascomparedto thefemalesubjects(p‐valueof0,019).


61

Regardingtheitemoftakingthenewspaperfromtheneighbour'spost‐box, there is no significant diference between male and femalesubjects (p‐value =0,409); similarly, the item reveals no significantdifferenceamongrespondentsbygenderrelatedtocallinginsickeventhoughnotinfactsick(p‐value0,610).

Takingofficeaccessories(pens,paper,etc.)forownhomeusewillbeeasierdonebymalesubjects,ascomparedtothefemaleparticipants(p‐valueof0,005). Male respondents are, in theory, more prone to keeping themoney and disposing of the foundwallet, as compared to the femalerespondents(p‐value=0,000). Likewise, forging the student‐status papers in order to obtainstudent‐status‐related benefits is a practice easier accepted by malestudentsascomparedtothefemalesubjects(p‐value=0,000). Maleparticipantshaveahigherscorerelatedtotheagreementofleavingpersonalposttobemailedamongbusinesspost(oncompany'sexpenses),ascomparedtothefemalesubjects(p‐value=0,010). ThemeanscoresoftheSEBQtoolitemregardingtheagreementwiththesubstitutabilityofpersonsinanexam(p‐value=0,000)showthatthesubstitutabilityofpersonsinanexamisapracticethatismoreagreedwithbymaleparticipantsascomparedtothefemalesubjects. Male participants in the study strongly agree with usingunallowed techniques (cheating) during the exam, as compared tofemalerespondents(p‐value=0,004). ThemeanscoresoftheSEBQtoolitemregardingtheagreementwithacademicplagiarism((p‐value=0,000)showthatthereisnostrongagreement with academic plagiarism from the female participants ascomparedtomalerespondents.

Goingfurther,theresultsregardingthe3scalesanalysed,namelyunethical behavior in society, profession and school show that maleparticipantshavehigherscoresrelatedtounethicalbehaviorinsociety,professionandschool,ascomparedtofemaleparticipants,asitcanbeeasilyobservedinTable5.

MANUELALUPU

62

Table5.Differencesbetweengenderandunethicalbehaviorinsociety,professionandschool

Levene'sTestforEqualityofVariances


F Sig. t df

Sig.(2‐tailed)

MeanDifference

Std.ErrorDifference

95%Confidence

Intervalofthe

Difference

Lower

Upper

Society

Equal

variances

assumed

1.894 .169 2.858 748 .004 .14449 .05055 .04524 .24373

Profes‐sion Eq

ual

variances

assumed

2.473 .116 2.670 748 .008 .15670 .05869 .04149 .27191

School

Equal

variances

assumed

17.793 .000 4.127 748 .000 .23250 .05634 .12190 .34309


Theseresultsareaethicallyproblematicsign,showingthatmale

students keep their unethical behavior in all three settings (school,profession,workplace). Although this is somewhatworrying formalestudents, the “relaxing” fact is that female studentsare stricter in thissense–leavingthechancethatfemalefuturemanagerswillreactmore


63

inlinewithethicalguidelines.Furthermore,somewhatreassuringisthefactthatintoday’sbusinessworldandnotonly,diversitymanagementandhiringwomenintopmanagementpositionsisbeingencouraged.

Ontheotherhand,previousstudies(Sims,1993,Hardingetal.,2004) show that there is a correlation between unethical behavior inshool and profession/in the workplace, but further conclude thatencouragingethicalbehaviorintheacademicsettingmighthavepositiveeffects on the “future ethical decision‐making in workplace settings”(Harding et all, 2004). So, in relation with the present research,universities should take into consideration this aspect andoffermoresupportandethicaltrainingprogammsformalestudents,andnotonly,inordertocreateandencourageethicalbehavior.ThisisalsotheviewofAristotel,oneofthestrongestadvocatesofaliberalartseducation,whichstresses the education of the whole person, including one's moralcharacter,ratherthanmerelylearningasetofskills.

Conclusions The results of the study confirm the opinions of most of the

international researchers an the hypothesis of the study has beenconfirmed.Hence,maleundergraduate andpostgraduate students aremorepermissiblewithunethicalbehavioratschool,attheworkplaceandinsocietyasopposedtofemalestudents.AteveryitemoftheSEBQtoolandonallscales,rangingfrom1to5,femalesubjectsaremoreethicalthanmen.Ontheotherhand,thepresentstudyhasalsoconfirmedthatfemalestudentshavehighergradesascomparedtomalestudents. Relatedtotheimplicationsofthestudy,webelivethattakingintoaccount the academic environment and its peculiarities, as previouslydiscussed,itisimportantfortheteachersandeducatorstoofferethicalmodels and to try to inflict into students an ethical behavior. For

MANUELALUPU

64

example,relatedtocheatingduringtheexams,teacherscanoffersupportto students in actingethicallyby stronglyverifyingandobserving thestudents during the exams in order not to encourage cheating. Thisaspect is even more important because research suggests that moststudents and managers do look to the social context and culture todeterminewhatisethicallyrightandwrong(Litzkyetal.,2006;Trevino&Brown,2004). Also,theresultsofthestudyclearlyshowthatwomenaremoreethicalascomparedtomen,whichisanimportantfactortobetakenintoaccount by the business environment if they want to create a moreethicalorganization. Thelimitationsofthestudyrefertotheneedtogodeeperintotheanalysis of unethical behavior and of the implication of unethicalbehaviorinrelationwithprofession,societyandschool.Weconsiderthatmore studiesonunethicalbehaviorof students, in relationwithmorevariables should be conducted. Furthermore, we may have to focusonour ethics training for students in general, and male students inparticular.

Future studies should be conducted in order to collect data atotherpointsoftimeandinordernottoinfluencethestudentsthattheyare supposed to pretend to be ethical and offer socially acceptableresponses,ideally,asocialdesirabilityscalecouldbeincludedaspartofthesurvey.

Wewish this research paper not to remain amere transversalanalysisofaphenomenon,usefulonlyintheacademicenvironmentbutto be promoted in order to have an impact on the way in which weeducate the future employees of the Romanian companies, the futuremanagersor the futurepoliticians, so thatwewilleventuallybuildanethicalculture,oneofresponsibilityforourcommonwelfare.


65

REFERENCES

Albaum,G.andPeterson,R.A.,2006.Ethicalattitudesoffuturebusinessleaders:

Dotheyvarybygenderandreligiosity?.Business&Society,45(3),pp.300‐321.

Ameen, E.C., Guffey, D.M. and McMillan, J.J., 1996. Gender differences indetermining the ethical sensitivity of future accounting professionals.JournalofBusinessethics,15(5),pp.591‐597.

Atakan,M.S.,Burnaz,S.andTopcu,Y.I.,2008.Anempiricalinvestigationoftheethical perceptions of future managers with a special emphasis ongender–Turkishcase.JournalofBusinessEthics,82(3),pp.573‐586.

Bageac,D.,Furrer,O.andReynaud,E.,2011.Managementstudents’attitudestoward business ethics: A comparison between France and Romania.JournalofBusinessEthics,98(3),pp.391‐406.

Betz,M.,O'Connell,L.andShepard,J.M.,1989.Genderdifferencesinproclivityforunethicalbehavior.JournalofBusinessEthics,8(5),pp.321‐324.

Buckley, M.R.,Wiese, D.S. and Harvey, M.G., 1998. An investigation into thedimensionsofunethicalbehavior.JournalofEducationforBusiness,73(5),pp.284‐290.

Chen,Y.J.andTang,T.L.P.,2006.Attitudetowardandpropensitytoengageinunethicalbehavior:Measurementinvarianceacrossmajoramonguniversitystudents.JournalofBusinessEthics,69(1),pp.77‐93.

Cojuharenco,I.,Shteynberg,G.,Gelfand,M.andSchminke,M.,2012.Self‐construalandunethicalbehavior.JournalofBusinessEthics,109(4),pp.447‐461.

Miroiu, M., Bulai, A., Cutaş, D., Ion, D. and Andreescu, L., 2005. Etica înuniversităţi:Cumesteşicumartrebuisăfie–CercetareşiCod.Romania:MinisterulEducaţieişiCercetării.http://www.edu.ro/index.php/rap_rez_desc_sitstat/2760.

Dawson,L.M.,1997.Ethicaldifferencesbetweenmenandwomeninthesalesprofession.JournalofBusinessEthics,16(11),pp.1143‐1152.

Ekin,M.S.A.andTezölmez,S.H.,1999.BusinessethicsinTurkey:Anempiricalinvestigationwithspecialemphasisongender.JournalofBusinessEthics,18(1),pp.17‐34.

MANUELALUPU

66

Harding,T.S.,D.D.Carpenter,C.J.FinelliandH.J.Passow,2004.Doesacademicdishonesty relate to unethical behaviour in professional practice? Anexploratorystudy.Scienceandengineeringethics10,pp.311‐324,availableat

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/375e/0340b6f6728d1bce71fee23369063f9c64d8.pdf,accessedonthe25thofJune2017

Hermkens,C.E.,andLuca,M.R.,2016.MeasuringAcademicDishonesty.RomanianJournalofExperimentalAppliedPsychology,7(1),pp246‐250.

Hoffman,J.J.,1998.Arewomenreallymoreethicalthanmen?Maybeitdependsonthesituation.JournalofManagerialIssues,pp.60‐73.

Ibrahim, N., Angelidis, J. and Tomic, I.M., 2009. Managers’ attitudes towardcodesofethics:Aretheregenderdifferences?.JournalofBusinessEthics,90,pp.343‐353.

Kum‐Lung, C. and Teck‐Chai, L., 2010. Attitude towards business ethics:examining the influence of religiosity, gender and education levels.InternationalJournalofMarketingStudies,2(1),p.225.

Lawson,R.A.,2004.Isclassroomcheatingrelatedtobusinessstudents'propensitytocheatinthe"realworld"?.Journalofbusinessethics,49(2),pp.189‐199.

Litzky,B.E.,Eddleston,K.A.andKidder,D.L.,2006.Thegood,thebad,andthemisguided:Howmanagers inadvertently encouragedeviant behaviors.TheAcademyofManagementPerspectives,20(1),pp.91‐103.

Lund,D.B.,2008.GenderdifferencesinethicsjudgmentofmarketingprofessionalsintheUnitedStates.JournalofBusinessEthics,77(4),pp.501‐515.

Luthar, H.K., DiBattista, R.A. and Gautschi, T., 1997. Perception of what theethicalclimateisandwhatitshouldbe:Theroleofgender,academicstatus,andethicaleducation.JournalofBusinessEthics,16(2),pp.205‐217.

McGee, R.W. and Preobragenskaya, G.G., 2006. The ethics of tax evasion: AsurveyofRomanianbusinessstudentsandfaculty.AccountingandFinancialSystemsReforminEasternEuropeandAsia,pp.299‐334.

McCabe,A.C.,Ingram,R.andDato‐On,M.C.,2006.ThebusinessofethicsandMcCabe,D.L., 1997. Classroom cheating among natural science and engineeringmajors.ScienceandEngineeringEthics,3(4),pp.433‐445.

Nonis, S. and Swift, C.O., 2001. An examination of the relationship betweenacademicdishonestyandworkplacedishonesty:Amulticampusinvestigation.JournalofEducationforbusiness,77(2),pp.69‐77.


67

Roxas,M.L.andStoneback,J.Y.,2004.Theimportanceofgenderacrossculturesinethicaldecision‐making.JournalofBusinessEthics,50(2),pp.149‐165.

Ruegger,D.andKing,E.W.,1992.Astudyoftheeffectofageandgenderuponstudentbusinessethics.JournalofBusinessEthics,11(3),pp.179‐186.

Sedmak,S.andNastav,B.,2010,November.Perceptionofethicalbehavioramongbusiness studies student. In11th International Conference on SocialResponsibility,ProfessionalEthicsandManagement (Vol.2427) available athttp://www.fm‐kp.si/zalozba/ISBN/978‐961‐266‐098‐7/papers/MIC9100.pdf(accessedonthe20thofJune2017).

Sims,R.L.,1993.Therelationshipbetweenacademicdishonestyandunethicalbusinesspractices.JournalofEducationforBusiness,68(4),pp.207‐211.

Teixeira, A.A. and Rocha, M.F., 2010. Cheating by economics and businessundergraduate students: an exploratory international assessment.HigherEducation,59(6),pp.663‐701.

Teodorescu,D.andAndrei,T.,2009.Facultyandpeerinfluencesonacademicintegrity:CollegecheatinginRomania.HigherEducation,57(3),pp.267‐282.

Trevino, L.K. andBrown,M.E., 2004.Managing tobeethical:Debunking fivebusiness ethics myths.The Academy of Management Executive,18(2),pp.69‐81.

Wang, L.C. and Calvano, L., 2015. Is business ethics education effective? Ananalysis of gender, personal ethical perspectives, andmoral judgment.JournalofBusinessEthics,126(4),pp.591‐602.


ROMANIANRURALLODGINGS:HOWMANYSURVIVEDOVERADECADE?APRELIMINARYSTUDYFOCUSED

ONTHERURALLOCALITIESHOSTING10ORMOREACCOMMODATIONUNITS

CORNELIAPOP1,CRISTINABALINT2

ABSTRACT.Tothebestofourknowledge,nopreviousstudyexitsonthe survival of tourist accommodationunits and/oron the economicentitiesrelatedtotheseaccommodationsinRomania.Thereforenosuchstudyexistsinrelationwiththeruralaccommodationunits.Throughthepresent studywe try tomakea small step in filling the researchgapregardingthesurvivalofextantruralaccommodationunitsinadevelopingcountry,Romania.Thefindingsshowanoverallsimplesurvivalrate(SSR)of38.21%.Theexistenceoftouristattractions(spa/mountainresortsandWorldHeritageSites) improvetheextant lodgingsSSR,while exceptionsexist in the countiesof Sibiu,Neamt, Suceava,Cluj andHarghita.Thedominantsurvivingaccommodationunitsaretheruralpensions.Theowners/operators of the survivor lodgings are mainly individualenterprises,thoughbetween2005and2016thenumberofoperatorsregistered as LLCs increased. Indirectly, the findings also imply thatmostofthesurvivorlodgingscanbeconsideredlifestyleenterprises.

Keywords:rurallodging,survivalrate,Romania

JELclassification:L83,R11

1Prof.dr.,DepartmentofBusiness,FacultyofBusiness,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,Romania,[email protected]

2Lecturerdr.,DepartmentofBusiness,FacultyofBusiness,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,Romania,[email protected]

CORNELIAPOP,CRISTINABALINT

70

Recommendedcitation:Pop,C.,Balint,C.,Romanianrurallodgings:howmanysurvivedoveradecade?Apreliminarystudyfocusedontherurallocalitieshosting10ormoreaccommodationunits,StudiaUBBNegotiavol.62,issue3(September),2017,pp.69‐96.

IntroductionandliteraturereviewThe literature on the survival of economic entities is relatively

recentandmostlyfocusedondevelopedcountries.Variousaspectsandfactorsinfluencingthelikelihoodofeconomicentitiessurvivalwereunderinvestigation.Generatinglegitimacy(establishingalegalentityandprovidingabusinessplan)influencesthesurvivalofthefirms(Delmar&Shane,2004).Theconditionsunderwhichthefirmsareborn(Geroskietal.,2010),thesizeandtheageofaventure(Cefis&Marsili,2006;Geroskietal.,2010;Wennbergetal.,2016)haveanimportantandlastinginfluenceontheeconomicentitiessurvivalrates.Theventure'scapacitytobedifferentandtomasteritscosts(Naidoo,2010),tobuilt‐inuniqueknowledgeassetsandtodevelopedistinctcapabilities(Denicolaietal.,2014;Esteve‐Perez&Manez‐Castillejo,2008)enhanceitsabilitiestoidentifyandexploitnewopportunitiesandtoadapttoaneverchangingandcompetitivebusinessenvironment(Acsetal.,2009;Esteve‐Perez&Manez‐Castillejo,2008).Theseabilitiesare furtheraugmentedby theconscientiousness(beinghardworking and persevering) and by the entrepreneurial bricolage,bothrelatedtohighersurvivinglikelihoodandtolongerlifespanfortherespectivefirms(Ciavarellaetal.,2004;Stenholm&Renko,2016).

The few studies that can be found on the ventures' survival indeveloping countries cover diverse topics. Konings & Xavier (2002)investigate thedeterminantsof firmsurvival inSloveniaandconfirmsthatthesizeofthenewventuresincreasethesurvivallikelihood.Aidis&Adachi (2007) present the difficult situation of Russian new ventures

ROMANIANRURALLODGINGS:HOWMANYSURVIVEDOVERADECADE?...

71

underawiderangeofinformalimpediments.Hansenetal.(2009)highlightthe factors influencing the firms'growthandsurvival inVietnam,onefactorbeingthestatesectorasmaincustomerfortherespectivefirms.Bahetal.(2011)discusstheimpactofexternalaidonMacedonianfirms.Marchetta (2012) presents the relationship between return migrantsandthesurvivalofentrepreneurialactivitiesinEgypt.

The papers on Romanian firms’ survival likelihood are scarce.Brown & Earle (2010) included the probability of survival for smallRomanian firms among the research topics. The study shows that theUSAIDloanshadnosignificanteffectonsurvival,whiletheyincreasedemploymentandsales.TheimportanceofloansforRomaniansmallfirmgrowthisinlinewiththepreviousfindingsofBrownetal.(2005).Amongthe most recent, Robu et al. (2013) focuses on the Bucharest StockExchange listed companies, investigating the risk of financial failureusing thesurvivalanalysisapproach.Stanciu (2015)onlyperipherallydiscusses the ideaof survivingstrategies for theRomanianretail foodcompaniesunder the international retail chainspressure.WhileotherstudiesmightexistonthesurvivallikelihoodofRomanianfirms,thesearenotavailablethroughinternetsearchandthereforedifficulttofind.

Few studies focus on the survival rate of tourism businesses.Thomasetal.(2011)discussingtheresearchtrendsontourismbusinessesmention no study concerning the survival rate of tourism firms. ThestudyofKnaup(2005),whichincludestheleisure&hospitalitysector,speaksaboutsurvivalratesof65%and44%for2yearsandrespectively4years,consideredbelowaveragedespitetheinclusionofrestaurantsamong thesurviving leisure&hospitalityentities.Also,Knaup (2005)commentsthat leisure&hospitalityestablishmentsare lesssuccessfulcomparedtoothersectors.Morerecently,Brouder&Eriksson(2013),focusedonSwedishtourismfirmsinperipheralareas.Thesurvivalratefortheextanttourismfirmsisof84%for2years,77%for4yearsand58%for 7 years. The study also suggests that the entrepreneur's experiencerelatedtotheactivityofthenewfirms,increasedtheirlikelihoodofsurvival.


72

Furthermore,thesurvivingtourismfirmsenhancetheroleoftourisminregionaldevelopmentmainlythroughsmallandconstantemploymentgains.

To the best of our knowledge, no previous study exits on thesurvivaloftouristaccommodationunitsand/orontheeconomicentitiesrelatedtotheseaccommodationsinRomania.Thereforenosuchstudyexistsinrelationwiththeruralaccommodationunits.Throughthepresentstudywetrytomakeasmallstepinfillingtheresearchgapregardingthesurvival of extant rural accommodation units in a developing country:Romania.Thefocusofthisstudyonruralaccommodationsismotivatedbythecomplementaryroletourismcanplayintheeconomicregeneration,improvement and development of rural areas (Naghiu et al., 2005;Lachovetal.,2006;Iorio&Corsale,2013b).Furthermore,thesurvivaloftheextantaccommodationunitswithina rural localityor region/areamightindirectlyindicatethesustainabilityoftourismdevelopmentintherespective locality/region/area.Hence, this preliminary study opens thedoortoawiderangeofresearchregardingthesurvivalrate,alongwiththeinfluencingfactors,ofboththeRomanianruralaccommodationunitsandtheeconomicentitiesthatownand/oroperatethem.

Data,researchmethodologyandhypotheses

SimilartothestudyofPopetal.(2017),theofficialdatabasesfortouristaccommodationprovidedbytheRomanianauthorityfortourismfor2005and2016wereused.Theaforementionedofficialdatabasesarenot archived and therefore a longitudinal evolution based on annualobservationsisnotpossible.Thefirstpubliclyavailabledatabaseisfor2005,whilethepost‐communistdevelopmentofruralaccommodationscanbetracedbacktothe1992‐1994period.

The information structure of these databases include both theaccommodationunit'snameandtherespectiveowner/operator,thoughdoesnotincludetheentryyearfortherespectiveaccommodationunits.


73

The focuson theaccommodationunits rather than theowners/operatorsismotivated by the fact that the same accommodation unit might beowned/operatedbyadifferenteconomicentityovertheyearsandbythefactthatthenameandthelocationoftherespectiveaccommodationunitare less likely to be changed, once the lodging gained somenotorietyamongthetourists.

Based on the data provided by the official databases, the rurallocalitieswhichregisteredat least10accommodationunitswere firstidentifiedandincludedinthepresentstudy.Thefocusonthesecommuneswithatleast10lodgingsisbasedonthefindingsofPopetal.(2107),whichshowthattherespectiverurallocalitiesconcentratemorethan60%oftheruralaccommodationunitsandroomsofthetotalrurallodgingcapacity.DetailsregardingtheselocalitiesareavailableinAppendices(1and2).

For each locality which registered at least 10 accommodationunitseitherin2005and/or2016,therewereidentifiedtheextantlodgingfacilities still 'alive' in 2016 compared with 2005. The identification ofsurviving lodgings was based on at least two of the following threecriteria:i)theaccommodationunit'sname;ii)theaccommodationunit'saddress; iii) theowner/operator3.Though, thecombinationof these3criteriadidnotallowtheidentificationofthoseaccommodationunits thatchangedboththenameandtheownerbetween2005and2016.Therefore,the number of surviving lodging facilities might be slightly (but notsignificantly)higherthanthereportedfiguresofthisstudy.

Further,therurallocalitieswheregrouped,assuggestedbyPopet al. (2017), in: resorts of national interest, resorts of local interest,communeshostingWorldHeritageSites(WHSs)and'other'rurallocalitieswhichincludevarious(lessknown)localtouristattractions.3 InRomania, ingeneral,andatrural level, inparticular,mostofthetimetheentityregistered as the operator of one accommodation unit is also the owner of therespective facility. This situation hasmultiple roots: a) the propensity toward theownershipofarealestatepropertyofRomaniansingeneral;b)thetendencyofanaccommodationunit'sownertobeincontrolofitsoperations;c)thehighlyfragmentedstructureoftheRomanianlodgingindustry.


74

Thefirstpartofthesurvivalanalysiswasusedfurther.Asimplesurvivalrate(SSR)wascalculatedsimilartothemedicalinvestigation:how many accommodation units were still alive (registered by theofficialdatabase)in2016comparedtotheaccommodationunitsexistingin2005(registeredbytherespectiveofficialdatabase)withinthesamerurallocalityorcommune.Thisratioisexpressedinpercentagepoints.

In order to estimate the level of fragmentation of ruralaccommodationsownership,theratioofaccommodationunitsperowner(operator)was also introduced. This ratio is expressed as coefficient.This information was also associated with the structure of survivingaccommodationunitsandthestructureoftherespectiveowners/operatorsfor2005and2016.ThesecouldrepresentsomeofthefactorsthatmightexplaintheSSR.Though,Appendix4includesonlypensions,hotelsandvillassincetheyrepresentthedominant lodgingfacilities,respectivelyonlyindividualenterprisesandLLCs(LimitedLiabilityCompanies)sincethey are the dominant forms for the legal entities under which theowners/operatorsexist.

TakenintoconsiderationarelativelydifficultRomanianbusinessenvironment4,similarwithotherdevelopingcountriesashighlightedbyMarchetta(2012)andAidis&Adachi(2007),andbasedonthefindingsofRadan‐Gorska(2013)regardingthe informalpractices inRomanianruraltourism,thefollowinghypotheseswereformulated:

H1:thesimplesurvivalrate(SSR)forthelocalitieswithmorethan10lodgingsisaround30%.

H2:thestatusoftherurallocality(resortofnationalorlocalinterest,hostingWHSs)mighthaveapositiveinfluenceontheSSR;inotherwords:SSRisexpectedtobehigherintherurallocalitiesassociatedwithrecognizedtouristattractions(mainlyspaand/ormountainresorts).

4WorldEconomicForumthrough theGlobalCompetitivenessReportsandTravel&TourismCompetitivenessReportsconstantlyranksRomaniaaround70thpositionofabout124‐137countries,withthemainproblemsrelatedtotaxation,bureaucracy,everchangingregulations,corruptionandaccesstotraditionalfinancialresources.


75

H3:themajorityofsurvivingaccommodationunitsarepensionsandthemajorityoftherespectiveowners/operatorsareindividualenterprises.

FindingsanddiscussionsAs stated previously, based on the study of Pop et al. (2017)

regardingruralaccommodationunits,thepresentstudyisfocusedontherurallocalities(communes),whichreportedatleast10lodgingfacilitiesin 2005 and/or 2016. These localities concentrated over 60% of thenumber of accommodations and of the lodging capacity in 2005 and2016respectively.Moreover,Popetal.(2017)considerthatatleast10lodgingswithinacommunecanprovideaccommodationforsmallgroupsoftourists, while the other communes might experience only sporadictourist activity. Details regarding the number of these communes arepresentedinAppendices1and2.

It is worth mentioning that 51 out of 123 rural localities (or41.46%)continuedtoconcentrateatleast10lodgingfacilitiesbetween2005 and 2016 and the majority of these communes come from thecategory of ‘other localities’ or localities with no renowned touristattractions.Also,thenumberofcommuneswithatleast10lodgingsgrewin 2016 versus 2005 indicating a rise in the respective populationawareness of the tourism potential. Furthermore, only 18 communes(14.63%)registeredaSSRofzero,suggestingthatoncealodgingfacilitywasestablished,despitethedifficulties, ithasthepotential tosurvive.OnlyoneofthesecommuneswithzeroSSRwasaresortoflocalinterests.This situation indicate that the rural localities considered resorts ofnational, respectively local interest and those hosting aWHS providebetterchancesfortheextantlodgingfacilitiestosurvive.


76

Appendix 3 presents the SSR by counties, regions and macro‐regions5.TheSSRatnationallevelfortherurallocalitieswithatleast10accommodationunitsis38.21%.TheSSRdecreasesat27.75%whentheresortsofnational/localinterestandWHSsareeliminated.

Somedetailsareworthtobehighlighted.Table1presentsthetop5and the last5 countiesbasedonSSR.All the top5 counties includeresortsofnationalorof local interest,whilewithinthe last5countiesonlyoneincludesresortsof local interest.Table2presentsadifferentsituationwhentheresortsandWHSsareexcluded.Withinthenewtop5counties, only Neamt and Sibiu kept their previous top 5 statussuggestingtheabilityoftheextantaccommodationunits’ownerstousethe available, though less known, tourist attractions in order to drawfurthertouristinflows.Thelast5countiesregisteredaslightalteration,VranceacountybeingreplacedbyBrasovcounty,withalowerSSR.

Itisinterestingtomentionthataftertheeliminationoftheresortsofnational/localinterestandWHS,thefollowingsituationswereidentified:a)for11countiestheSSRremainsunchangedsincethesecountiesdidnothostruralresorts6orWHSs;b)for11countiestheSSRdecreased7;c)for2counties(ClujandSuceava)theSSRincreasedintheabsenceofresortsandWHSs;d)onecounty(Valcea)showsthesameSSReitherwithorwithoutthenationalresortincluded.Furtherinvestigationsareneededinordertounderstandmainlythesituationofthelastthreementionedcounties(Cluj,SuceavaandValcea)andalsotounderstandthecaseofHarghita county low SSR despite the presence of two resorts of localinterest.

5 Themapofcounties,regionsandmacro‐regionsisavailableinAppendix56 These counties are: Arges, Bacau, Bistrita‐Nasaud, Caras‐Severin, Dambovita, Hunedoara,Gorj,Mehedinti,Mures,Timis,Vrancea.

7Thesecountiesare:Alba,Bihor,Brasov,Buzau,Constanta,Covasna,Harghita,Maramures,Neamt,Prahova,andSibiu.


77

Table1.Thetop5andthelast5countiesbasedonthesimplesurvivalrateofaccommodationunitsbetween2005and2016

Top5County Simplesurvivalrate

(%)Comments

Braila 100.00 Onlyonelocality,theresortoflocalinterest(Chiscani‐LacuSarat)

Bihor 60.29 Includesoneresortofnationalinterestandoneoflocalinterest(BaileFelixandrespectivelyBaile1Mai)

Constanta 60.13 IncludesoneresortofnationalinterestatBlackSeaside(Costinesti)

Neamt 57.38 Includesoneresortoflocalinterest(Ceahlau‐Durau)Sibiu 56.52 Includesoneresortoflocalinterest(Bazna)

Last5

County Simplesurvivalrate(%)

Comments

Vrancea 29.03 NoresortsorWHSHarghita 17.61 Includes2resortsoflocalinterest(Praidand

Voslabeni‐IzvoruMuresului)Mehedinti 16.67 NoresortsorWHSTimis 14.29 NoresortsorWHSMures 0.00 NoresortsorWHS.Onlyonelocalitywithmorethan

10lodgings.

Source:authors'calculationsbasedontheofficialauthorityfortourismdatabaseTable2.Thetop5andthelast5countiesbasedonthesimplesurvival

rateofaccommodationunitsbetween2005and2016:resorts(ofnationalandlocalinterest)andWHSexcluded


(%)Comments

Cluj 57.89 IncludesonecommuneinthemountainareawithaSSRofabout80%andtwocommunesnearCluj‐Napoca(countyresidence)withSSRof50%to60%.

Neamt 56.00 Beautifulmountainareasandmonasterieswhichattractleisureandreligioustourism.


78


(%)Comments

Suceava 54.84 Beautifulmountainareasandmonasteries(othersthanWHS)whichattractleisureandreligioustourism.

Valcea 50.00 Leisuretourisminthemountainareasmainlyinfluencedbytheproximityoftheresortofnationalinterest(Voineasa).

Sibiu 50.00 Beautifulmountainareasleisuretourism

Last5

County Simplesurvivalrate(%)

Comments

Brasov 20.31 Lessknowntouristattractions.InfluencedbythehighconcentrationofaccommodationunitsinPredeal(municipality)andBran‐Moeciu

Mehedinti 16.67 LessknowntouristattractionsTimis 14.29 Lessknowntouristattractions

Harghita 11.11 LessknowntouristattractionsMures 0.00 Onlyonelocalitywithmorethan10lodgings.Less

knowntouristattraction

Source:authors'calculationsbasedontheofficialauthorityfortourismdatabase

AsAppendix3 shows,Macro‐region1presents the lowestSSR,undertheinfluenceofCenterregion,whichalsohasthelowestSSRamongthe8regions.ThissituationseemstobeinfluencedbythelowsurvivalrateofHarghitacounty(whichneedsfurtherandindepthinvestigations),butalsobythefactthattheCenterregion,respectivelyMacro‐region1,concentratethehighestnumberof‘other’rurallocalities,associatedwithalowSSR.

Macro‐region 4 exhibits only a slightly higher SSR and thispositionseemsalsotobeundertheinfluenceof ‘other’rurallocalities,whicharedominantwithinthismacro‐region.ThoughinasimilarsituationasMacro‐region4,Macro‐region3presentsahigherSSRsuggestingtheneedforfurtherinvestigations.


79

Macro‐region 2 presents the highest SSR and this situation isexplainedbytheexistenceofresortsofnationalandlocalinterestattheBlack Seaside, but also by a more balanced distribution of the rurallocalitiesbetweenthosehostingWHSsand‘other’.

Basedon these findings,H1 ispartly confirmed. The general

SSR(includingallselectedrurallocalities)isabout8%higherthantheexpected30%.Though,whenthenational/localresortsandWHSsareexcluded, theSSRdecreases at27.75%, about2%under the expectedvalue. These results for H1 suggest that H2 can be considered to beconfirmed.ThisevidenceisfurthersupportedbytheresultsforMacro‐regions1,4,and2andbythedatainTable3whichalsoindicatealinkbetween the type of rural locality and the SSR.However, the data forMacro‐region3 isnot in linewith these findings,although itmightbeconsideredanexception.Therefore,H2isconfirmed.

Table 3 and Appendix 4 present the structure of the survivingaccommodationunitsandtherespectiveowners.ThedominanttypeofsurvivingaccommodationisrepresentedbypensionsandthisfindingisinlinewiththefindingsofPopetal.(2017)8.Also,thedominanttypeoftherespectiveowners/operatorsisrepresentedbyindividualenterprises.Itmust be highlighted that between 2005 and 2016, the dominance ofpensionsregisteredaslightdecreaseatnationallevel,andmainlywithinmacro‐regions1and3.Forthesameperiod,theindividualenterprisesregisteredadeclinebychangingtoLLCs.Thisshiftinthecaseofowners’legalstatusmighthavebeentriggeredbyvariousfactors(i.e.theaccessto financing sources or the change in ownership) that call for furtherinvestigations.Thedominanceofpensionsandindividualenterprisesis

8 Atcountylevel(Appendix4),threecounties(Gorj,Hunedoara,andMehedinti)haveonlysurvivingpensions,while inothersixcountries(all fromMacro‐region1) thesurviving pensions represent about or more than 90%. The counties were thesurvivingpensionsareleastrepresentedareAradandBraila(bothincludingonlyoneresortofnationalinteresteach).


80

also confirmedwithin the resorts of local interests,WHSs, and ‘other’rurallocalities(Table3).Furthermore,attheserurallocalities’levelthedecreasing trend of pensions and individual enterprises is confirmed(Table 3). These three subcategories of localities (resorts of localinterest,WHSs and ‘others’) represent themajority of rural localitiesunderinvestigation.Basedonthesefindings,H3isconfirmed.

Table3.CentralizedinformationregardingSSRandthestructureofsurvivingaccommodationunitsandtherespectiveowners

Typesoflocalities

SSR(%)

Accommodationtoownerratio

Structureofsurvivoraccommodationunitsandtherespectiveowners

Pensions(%) Hotels(%) Villas(%) Individualenterprises(%)

LLCs(%)

2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016

National(rural)level

38.21 1.10 1.11 76.06 72.67 8.79 8.84 7.17 7.53 63.51 56.26 30.41 39.20

Resortsofnationalinterest

63.47 1.51 1.56 32.37 28.06 20.14 20.14 29.50

17.99

48.91 37.08 44.57 56.18

Resortsoflocalinterest

48.43 1.05 1.08 79.27 76.02 9.35 9.35 5.28 4.88 65.38 55.51 29.49 41.41

WHS 46.46 1.39 1.40 61.96 58.24 3.26 2.20 25.00

27.47

62.12 53.85 33.33 43.08

Otherlocalities

27.75 1.02 1.02 85.80 81.16 2.72 2.13 3.63 3.95 65.02 60.87 23.84 30.12

Note1:whatitisincludedin‘individualenterprises’Note2:LLCsisusedforRomanianSRLs(societaticuraspunderelimitata)Source:authors'calculationsbasedontheofficialauthorityfortourismdatabase

Nonetheless, within the rural resorts of national interest, theoverall structure of surviving lodgings and the respective owners isdifferent:hereonecannoticeamorebalancedspreadbetweenpensions,


81

hotelsandvillas.Though,thecountiesthathosttheresortsofnationalinterest exhibit either a cleardominanceof hotels (Arad,Braila), or adominanceofvillas(Constanta),oralthoughpensionsaredominant,hotelsrepresent an important proportion of the surviving lodgings (Bihor).Additionally, theoverall structureof the respectiveowners/operatorsshowsabalanceddistributionbetween the individual enterprisesandLLCs. However, when considered individually, within the counties ofArad,BrailaandConstanta,thesurvivingLLCsaredominant.Though,thepeculiarsituationoftheruralresortsofnationalinterestcanbeconsideredanexception,sincethereareonly4localitiesoutofthe123includedinthestudy,hencewithasmallinfluenceonthegeneralfindings.

An additional information extracted from the available datapresentstheaccommodationtoownerratio(Table3andAppendix4).Thisratiodescribesahighleveloffragmentationofruralaccommodationunits:almosteachaccommodationunitisownedbyadifferententity9.Thisratioshowsaslightupwardtendencyexceptfor‘other’rurallocalities.Theaccommodationtoownerratioisthehighestwithintheresortsofnationalinterestsincethereatleastpartofthehotelsareownedbythesame economic entity. It is followed by the localities hosting WHSs.Though,here themost important influencecomes fromTulceacountywhichexhibitsaratioofabout2for2005andrespectively2016,mainlydue to the concentration of the majority villas by just two economicentities.AbriefglanceatTable3suggestsalinkbetweentheSSRandthe

9 This information should be considered under the following observation: theRomaniansinvolvedinbusinesshavethetendencytobeinvolvedinmorethanoneeconomicentity,creatinganetworkofsuchentitiessometimestoavoidthepersonallinkwithagivenbusinessorcompanyortohavean'escape'alternativeifonelegalentity goes bankrupt. This pattern is common among the top 500 Romanians aspresentedbyForbesandalsoamongthebusinesspeoplelocatedinthecities.Itisnotclear how widespread this pattern is at rural level, but given the lower level offinancial resources and up to a point a lower level of 'business sophistication', aneducatedguess impliesthespreadof thispatterntoa lesserextent.Therefore, thefragmentationlevelpresentedabovemightbelowerbutnotsignificantly.


82

accommodationtoownerratio,thereforethisratiocouldbeconsideredanexplanatoryfactorforSSRinfutureresearch.

Theobservedoveralltendencyofpensionstodecreasebetween2005and2016raisedthequestionifthereisapreferredtypeoflodgingthey are transformed into. Therefore, the conversions that occurredwithinthe805accommodationunitswereinvestigatedandthefindingsrevealedthefollowings:i)only56lodgingschangedtheirtypebetween2005and2016;ii)for20casesnocleartransformationpatterncouldbeidentified;iii)3villasbecamepensions;iv)33pensionswereconversedin19roomsforrent,1apartmentforrent,4villas,4lodges,1hotel,1motel,2hostelsand1camping.Therefore, themaintendency for pensionswasgiven by their transformation in rooms or apartments for rent. Thistransformation needs further investigations though themost obviousreasonmightbecostrelatedsincesuchalodgingtypeofferslessservices(i.e.breakfastandothermeals)andlessinteractionwiththeaccommodatedtourists.

Otherlodgingtransformationsthatoccurredbetween2005and2016 refer to splits and amalgamations. The few identified splits arerelatedmainlytovillas:i)1extantvillafrom2005became11villasin2016,withthesamelodgingcapacityasin2005,beingpartofaholidayvillage (Brasov county); ii) 1 registered villa of 29 rooms from 2005,became29villasofoneroomeach(Tulceacounty);iii)1villafrom2005wasregisteredas3bungalowsin2016,withasimilarlodgingcapacity(Constantacounty).Theamalgamationswerealsofew,Constantacountyleadingwith1bungalowmerging6formerbungalows,1hosteluniting4formerbungalows,1hotelmerging3formerhotels,and1hoteluniting21formervillas.Theotherthreeamalgamationsoccurredassuch:i)1roomforrentunited1formerpensionand1formercabin(Argescounty); ii)1villaunited2formervillas(Tulceacounty);iii)1pensionmerged2formerpensions (Harghita county). For counting reasons the aforementionedtransformationswereconsideredone toone,otherwise theSSRcould


83

not be calculated in a uniformmanner. The lownumber of splits andamalgamationsindicatethattheyareratherformaltransformationsandnotanindicationofafurtherfragmentationoraconcentrationprocess.

ConclusionsThepresentpaperinvestigatedthesimplesurvivalrate(SSR)of

theextant lodging facilitieswithin the rural localities concentratingatleast 10 accommodation units. SSRwas calculated based on the dataavailable for 2005 and 2016. This period includes years of economicgrowth,thefinancialandeconomiccrisisof2007‐2011andtherecoveryperiod that followed.Therefore, the resultspresented in thisresearchshouldbeconsideredundertheaforementionedeconomicconditions.

WithoutanypreviousreferencepointtocomparetheresultswithneitherforallRomaniansectorsnorforlodgingindustryitisdifficulttostateiftheoverallSSRof38.21%ishighorlow10.Nonetheless,giventherelativedifficultbusinessenvironmentforRomanianfirms(seefootnote4),thisSSRcanbeconsideredreasonable.Theexistenceoftouristattractions(spa/mountainresortsandWHSs)improvetheextantlodgingsoverallSSR,whileexceptionsexistinthecountiesofSibiu,Neamt,Suceava,ClujandHarghita.Thedominantsurvivingaccommodationunitsaretheruralpensions,afindinginlinewiththeresultspresentedbyPopetal.(2017)for the rural lodging sector.Nonetheless, the rural resorts of nationalinterestpresentaslightlydifferentstructureforthesurvivorlodgings:amorebalanceddistributionbetweenpensions,hotelsandvillas,partlyinfluencedbyanimportantnumberofhotelsbuiltwithintheseresortsduringthecommunistperiod.Fewtransformationswereidentified,themostfrequentindicatingtheconversionofpensionsinrooms/apartmentsforrent.10 While some comparisons might be made with the results of Knaup (2005) andBrouder&Eriksson (2013), thosedata refer to shorter timespansand to tourismfirmsactiveindifferenteconomicenvironments.


84

The owners/operators of the survivor lodgings are mainly individualenterprises, thoughbetween2005and2016 thenumberof operatorsregisteredasLLCsincreased.Overall,thereisahighleveloffragmentationof survivor rural lodgings, the accommodation units per owner ratiobeingslightlyover1.However,theruralresortsofnationalinterestandWHSs seems to have a higher such ratio due to the concentrations ofsomehotels(mainlyinBihorcounty)andsomevillas(mainlyinTulceacounty)underthesameowners.Nonetheless,theslightincreaseofthisratiobetween2005and2016doesnotindicateanimportantprocessoflodgingconcentration.

Thepreliminaryresultspresentedbythisresearchseemtoconfirmtheideathattheageoftheventure(Geroskietal.,2010;Wennbergetal.,2016)mighthaveaninfluenceonthesurvivalratesincethe2005extantruralaccommodationunitswereeitherestablishedbeforeorduring2005.Furthermore,thehardworkingandperseveringattitudes,assuggestedbyCiavarellaetal.,2004,of rural lodgings’ownersappear tohaveaninfluenceonthesurvivalrate.Thedominanceofindividualenterprisesimplythattheaforementionedattitudesmightberelatedtothefactthatmostoftheserurallodgingscanbeincludedinthecategoryoflifestyleenterprises.Alltheseimpliedfindingsopenasmanynewresearchavenuesthatmightproveimportantforabetterunderstandingoftourismroleinlocaland/orregionaldevelopment.

REFERENCESAcs,Z.J.,Braunerhjelm,P.,Audretsch,D.B.,Carlsson,B.(2009),Theknowledge

spillovertheoryofentrepreneurship,SmallBusinessEconomics,32,15‐30.

Aidis,R.,Adachi,Y.(2007),Russia:firmentryandsurvivalbarriers,EconomicSystems,31(4),391‐411.


85

Bah,E.,Brada,J.,Yigit,T.(2011),Withalittlehelpfromourfriends:theeffectofUSAID assistance on SME growth in a transition economy, Journal ofComparativeEconomics,39(2),205‐220.

Brouder,P.,Eriksson,R.H.(2013),Stayingpower:Whatinfluencesmicro‐firmsurvivalintourism?TourismGeographies,15(1),124‐143.

Brown,J.D.,Earle,J.S.,Lup,D.(2005),Whatmakessmall firmgrow?Finance,human capital, technical assistance, and the business environment inRomania,EconomicDevelopmentandCulturalChange,54(1),33‐70.

Brown,J.D.,Earle,J.S.(2010),Firm‐levelgrowtheffectofsmallloanprograms:estimatesusinguniversalpaneldatafromRomania,JDI‐TheJohnDeutschInstitute for theStudyofEconomicPolicy,Queen’sUniversity,Canada,retrievedat:http://www.jdi.econ.queensu.ca/sites/default/files/Matching%20SMEs%2010_0.pdf

Cefis,E.,Marsili,O.(2006),Survivor:theroleofinnovationinfirms’survival,ResearchPolicy,35(5),626‐641.

Ciavarella, M.A., Buchholtz, A.K., Riordan, C.M., Gatewood, R.D., Stokes, G.S.(2004),TheBigFiveandventuresurvival:istherealinkage?,JournalofBusinessVenturing,19(4),465‐483.

Delmar, F., Shane, S. (2004), Legitimating first: organizing activities and thesurvivalofnewventures,JournalofBusinessVenturing,19(3),385‐410.

Denicolai, S.,Ramirez,M.,Tidd, J. (2014),Creatingand capturingvalue fromexternal knowledge: themoderating role of knowledge intensity, R&DManagement,44(3),248‐264.

Esteve‐Perez,S.,Manez‐Castillejo,J.A.(2008),Theresource‐basedtheoryofthefirmandfirmsurvival,SmallBusinessEconomics,30,231‐249.

Geroski,P.A.,Mata,J.,Portugal,P.(2010),Foundingconditionsandthesurvivalofnewfirms,StrategicManagementJournal,31,510‐529.

Hansen,H.,Rand,J.,Tarp,F.(2009),EnterprisegrowthandsurvivalinVietnam:Does the government support the matter?, Journal of DevelopmentStudies,45(7),1048‐1069.

Iorio, M., Corsale, A. (2013b), Community‐based tourism and networking:Viscri,Romania,JournalofSustainableTourism,22(2),234‐255.

Knaup,A.E.(2005),Survivalandlongevityinthebusinessemploymentdynamicsdata,MonthlyLaborReview,May2005,50‐56.


86

Konings,J.,Xavier,A.(2002),Firmgrowthandsurvivalinatransitioncountry:microevidencefromSlovenia,Discussionpaper114/2002,LICOSDiscussionPapers,LICOSCentreforTransitionEconomics,KatholiekeUniversiteitLeuven,Belgium.

Lachov, G., Stoycheva, I., Georgiev, I. (2006), Comparative analysis of ruraltourismdevelopmentinsomeselectedEuropeancountries,TrakiaJournalofSciences,4(4),44‐51.

Marchetta, F. (2012), Return migration and the survival of entrepreneurialactivitiesinEgypt,WorldDevelopment,40(10),1999‐2013.

Naghiu,A.,Vazquez,J.L.,Georgiev,I.(2005),RuraldevelopmentstrategiesthroughruralactivitiesinRomania:chanceforaninternaldemand?,InternationalReviewonPublicandNonProfitMarketing,2(1),85‐95.

Naidoo, V. (2010), Firm survival through a crisis: the influence of marketorientation,marketinginnovationandbusinessstrategy,IndustrialMarketingManagement39(8),1311‐1320.

Pop, C., Coros, M.M., Balint, C. (2017), Romanian rural tourism: a survey ofaccommodationfacilities,StudiaUBBNegotia,62(2),71‐126.

Radan‐Gorska,M.M.(2013),Destinationswithoutregulations:informalpracticesinRomanianruraltourism,JournalofComparativeResearchinAnthropologyandSociology,4(2),195‐225.

Robu,M‐A.,Robu,I‐B.,Mironiuc,M.(2013),RiskassessmentoffinancialfailureforRomanianquotedcompaniesbasedonthesurvivalanalysis,inProceedingsofthe8thInternationalConferenceAccountingandManagementInformationSystems,AMIS,EdituraASE,51‐65,availableat:

http://www.cig.ase.ro/amis2013/fisiere/amis2013.pdfStanciu, S. (2015), TheRomania retail foodmarket – survival or success for

domesticcompanies,ProcediaEconomicsandFinance23(2015),1584‐1589.Stenholm,P.,Renko,M. (2016),Passionatebricoleursandnewventure survival,

JournalofBusinessVenturing,31(5),595‐611.Thomas,R.,Shaw,G.,Page,S.J.(2011),Understandingsmallfirmsintourism,a

perspective on research trends and challenges, Tourism Management32(5),963‐976.

Wennberg,K.,Delmar,F.,McKelvie,A.(2016),Variableriskpreferencesandthenewfirmgrowthandsurvival,JournalofBusinessVenturing,31(5),408‐427.


87

Appendix1:Localitieshostingatleast10accommodationunitsbycountiesandbyregions

County/

Region/

Macro‐

region

Communes

(INSSE)

Communesreportinglodgings

Concentration2005

(10ormorelodgings)

Concentration2016

(10ormorelodgings)

Communeswithtouristpotential*

(NRDP2007‐2013)

2005

2016

2005

2016

communes

%oflodgings

%ofrooms

communes

%oflodgings

%ofrooms

Hightourist

resources

concentration

Veryhightourist

resources

concentration

Bihor 90 91 25 38 2 51.22 87.24 2 71.38 83.09 23 3

Bistrita‐Nasaud 58 58 9 28 0 0 0 2 31.17 37.30 30 7

Cluj 75 75 26 41 3 52.55 30.63 6 56.64 50.63 27 0

Maramures 63 63 34 39 11 76.49 71.02 8 60.41 58.22 44 10

Salaj 57 57 5 23 0 0 0 1 20.41 20.86 31 0

North‐West 402 403 105 186 16 58.81 70.97 19 56.74 64.71 165 20

Alba 66 67 19 33 4 64.39 60.03 5 60.58 61.98 34 11

Brasov 48 48 20 32 4 85.03 83.31 8 87.90 69.85 29 4

Covasna 40 40 18 26 1 40.63 18.83 2 27.37 28.35 20 7

Harghita 58 58 37 44 18 94.26 90.38 6 66.67 62.81 35 1

Mures 91 91 20 36 0 0 0 1 10.89 13.05 57 2

Sibiu 53 53 16 24 2 36.14 21.87 7 67.79 70.35 27 8

Center 356 357 130 195 29 78.79 66.94 29 68.04 60.14 202 33

Macroregion1 758 760 235 381 45 72.70 69.22 48 63.75 62.16 367 53

Bacau 85 85 16 25 0 0 0 1 20.00 13.04 14 0


88

County/

Region/

Macro‐

region

Communes

(INSSE)


Concentration2005

(10ormorelodgings)

Concentration2016

(10ormorelodgings)


(NRDP2007‐2013)2005

2016

2005

2016

communes

%oflodgings

%ofrooms

communes

%oflodgings

%ofrooms

Hightourist

resources

concentration

Veryhightourist

resources

concentration

Neamt 78 78 22 36 2 47.12 33.89 6 66.14 61.73 36 7

Suceava 97 98 32 54 6 57.95 52.59 13 73.15 74.93 34 7

North‐East 505 506 87 152 8 44.02 35.11 20 58.67 55.81 116 14

Braila 40 40 2 6 0 0 0 1 55.00 25.94 14 0

Buzau 82 82 13 28 1 46.15 69.17 2 45.63 54.40 15 1

Constanta 58 58 7 14 2 91.52 94.61 3 93.61 96.34 19 6

Tulcea 46 46 13 18 5 77.78 81.17 6 83.99 82.94 21 3

Vrancea 68 68 18 21 1 57.41 40.79 1 53.33 57.32 19 0

South‐East 354 355 55 93 9 74.74 77.72 13 81.09 84.89 103 10

Macroregion2 859 861 142 245 17 60.17 64.68 33 70.88 75.44 219 24

Arges 95 95 20 41 3 57.14 50.69 5 59.54 61.83 49 1

Dambovita 82 82 11 25 1 57.14 66.67 1 41.79 54.58 18 1

Prahova 90 90 17 20 1 48.15 52.67 2 47.52 49.05 18 0

South‐Muntenia

517 519 56 110 5 50.95 51.22 8 49.97 53.39 95 3

Macroregion3 517 519 56 110 5 50.95 51.22 8 49.97 53.39 95 3

Arad 68 68 15 20 1 37.50 66.13 1 34.67 50.88 12 2

Caras‐Severin 69 69 11 33 2 41.18 19.88 5 56.69 63.10 26 5


89

County/

Region/

Macro‐

region

Communes

(INSSE)


Concentration2005

(10ormorelodgings)

Concentration2016

(10ormorelodgings)


(NRDP2007‐2013)2005

2016

2005

2016

communes

%oflodgings

%ofrooms

communes

%oflodgings

%ofrooms

Hightourist

resources

concentration

Veryhightourist

resources

concentration

Hunedoara 55 55 16 30 1 24.53 12.08 1 21.24 23.14 33 5

Timis 85 85 8 28 2 50.00 30.40 1 13.75 2.50 9 0

West 277 277 50 111 6 37.63 34.46 8 33.67 38.25 80 12

Gorj 61 61 8 18 0 0 0 3 62.50 63.96 27 3

Mehedinti 61 61 8 12 1 37.04 17.39 2 65.52 55.16 16 1

Valcea 78 78 19 23 1 36.67 80.58 3 63.08 74.00 27 2

South‐West 408 408 43 74 2 28.83 58.78 8 56.25 58.48 84 6

Macroregion4 685 685 93 185 8 34.34 45.44 16 43.78 46.76 164 18

Nationallevel(rural)

2,819 2,825 526 921 75 64.51 63.13 105 62.17 64.25 845 98

Note:Thetotalsbyregions,macro‐regionsandatnationallevelforcolumns1,2,3,4,11,and12includesalsothecommunesforthecountiesnot includedinthistableduetotheabsenceoflocalitieswithatleast10lodgingfacilities.

Source:ExtractedfromAppendix3ofPopetal.(2017)


90

Appendix2:Thenumberofrurallocalitiesincludedinthestudybasedontheirstatus

County/Region/Macro‐region

Numberoflocalitiesconcentratingatleast10lodging

facilities

Ofwhichconcentratedatleast10lodgingfacilities

Localitieswithzero

SSROnlyin2005

Onlyin2016

In2005and2016

Bihor 3 1 1 1 1Bistrita‐Nasaud

2 0 2 0 0

Cluj 7 1 4 2 1Maramures 13 5 2 6 1North‐West 25 7 9 9 3Alba 5 0 1 4 1Brasov 9 1 5 3 3Covasna 2 0 1 1 0Harghita 18 13 0 5 5Mures 1 0 1 0 1Sibiu 6 0 4 2 1Center 41 14 12 15 11Macroregion1 66 21 21 24 14Bacau 1 0 1 0 0Neamt 6 0 4 2 0Suceava 13 1 7 5 1North‐East 20 1 12 7 1Braila 1 0 1 0 0Buzau 1 0 0 1 0Constanta 3 0 1 2 0Tulcea 7 1 1 5 0Vrancea 1 0 0 1 0South‐East 13 1 3 9 0Macroregion2 33 2 15 16 1Arges 5 0 2 3 0Dambovita 1 0 0 1 0Prahova 2 0 1 1 0South‐Muntenia

8 0 3 5 0

Macroregion3 8 0 3 5 0Arad 1 0 0 1 0Caras‐Severin 5 0 3 2 0Hunedoara 1 0 0 1 0


91


Numberoflocalitiesconcentratingatleast10lodging

facilities

Ofwhichconcentratedatleast10lodgingfacilities

Localitieswithzero

SSROnlyin2005

Onlyin2016

In2005and2016

Timis 2 2 0 0 1West 9 2 3 4 1Gorj 2 0 2 0 1Mehedinti 2 0 1 1 1Valcea 3 0 2 1 0South‐West 7 0 5 2 2Macroregion4 16 2 8 6 3Nationallevel(rural)

123 25 47 51 18

ofwhich


4 0 0 4 0


15 1 5 9 1

WHS 16 4 5 7 0Otherlocalities

88 20 37 31 17

Note1:Five localitieswereeliminatedfromthestudyduetotheabsenceof lodgingfacilitiesin2005,onelocalityineachofthesecountiesGorj,Salaj,Sibiu,Suceava,andTimis.

Note2:Sanmartincommune(Bihorcounty)includesoneresortofnationalinterest(BaileFelix)andoneresortoflocalinterest(Baile1Mai).SinceBaileFelixhasahigherimportance,Sanmartinwascountedonlyoncewithin'resortofnationalinterest'category.

Note3:TheonlyresortoflocalinterestwithzerosimplesurvivalratewasBudureasa‐StanadeVale(Bihorcounty).Thetourismdevelopment(orratherthelackofit)isrelatedtothedominanceintheareaofthecontroversialfiguresofMiculabrothersandtheirintricatewebof their numerous businesses. Informal sources suggest that this situation hinders thedevelopmentofprivateinitiativenotrelatedtoMicula'snetwork.

Source:authors'calculations


92

Appendix3:Thesimplesurvivalrateandthetypeofrurallocalities


Simplesurvivalrate

(%)

Simplesurvivalrate(%)

[resortsandWHSexcluded]

Localitiesconcentratedatleast10lodgingfacilities



WHS Other

Bihor 60.29 40.00 1 1 0 1Bistrita‐Nasaud

30.00 30.00 0 0 0 2

Cluj 54.55 57.89 0 2 0 5Maramures 31.72 28.57 0 1 4 8North‐West 42.90 39.17 1 4 4 16Alba 37.93 29.79 0 2 0 3Brasov 43.54 20.31 0 1 1 7Covasna 45.16 42.31 0 1 0 1Harghita 17.61 11.11 0 2 0 15Mures 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 1Sibiu 56.52 50.00 0 1 0 5Center 28.98 17.11 0 7 1 32Macroregion1 32.60 22.72 1 11 5 48Bacau 33.33 33.33 0 0 0 1Neamt 57.38 56.00 0 1 0 5Suceava 49.61 54.84 0 0 4 9North‐East 51.81 54.44 0 1 4 15Braila 100.00 n/a 0 1 0 0Buzau 52.17 40.00 0 1 0 1Constanta 60.13 45.45 1 0 0 2Tulcea 52.27 n/a 0 0 7 0Vrancea 29.03 29.03 0 0 0 1South‐East 54.97 36.21 1 2 7 4Macroregion2 53.74 47.30 1 3 11 19Arges 46.97 46.97 0 0 0 5Dambovita 43.75 43.75 0 0 0 1Prahova 35.42 22.22 0 1 0 1South‐Muntenia

42.31 43.96 0 1 0 7

Macroregion3 42.31 43.96 0 1 0 7Arad 46.67 n/a 1 0 0 0Caras‐Severin 31.25 31.25 0 0 0 5


93


Simplesurvivalrate

(%)

Simplesurvivalrate(%)

[resortsandWHSexcluded]

Localitiesconcentratedatleast10lodgingfacilities



WHS Other

Hunedoara 30.77 30.77 0 0 0 1Timis 14.29 14.29 0 0 0 2West 29.63 25.76 1 0 0 8Gorj 33.33 33.33 0 0 0 2Mehedinti 16.67 16.67 0 0 0 2Valcea 50.00 50.00 1 0 0 2South‐West 40.00 30.43 1 0 0 6Macroregion4 33.33 26.97 2 0 0 14Nationallevel(rural)

38.21 27.75 4 15 16 88

ofwhich


63.47 ‐ 4 ‐ ‐ ‐

Resortsoflocalinterst

48.43 ‐ ‐ 15 ‐ ‐

WHS 46.46 ‐ ‐ ‐ 16 ‐Otherlocalities

27.75 27.75 ‐ ‐ ‐ 88

Note:Thesimplesurvival rateatregion,macro‐region,andnational levelwascalculatedbasedonthenumberofsurvivingaccommodationunitsandnotasanaveragebasedonthelocalitiesandcountiessimplesurvivalrates.



94

Appendix4:Thestructureofruralsurvivoraccommodationunitsandtherespectiveowners/operatorsandtheconcentration

ofaccommodationunitsperowner


Survivoraccommodations Owners/operators Accommodationunitsperowner/

operator

(ratio)

Pensions(%)

Hotels(%)

Villas(%)

Individualenterprises

(%)

LLCs(%)

2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016

Bihor 60.98 56.10 31.71 31.71 2.44 4.88 67.65 50.00 26.47 41.18 1.21 1.21

Bistrita‐Nasaud

66.67 33.33 33.33 33.33 0 0 0 0 100 100 1 1

Cluj 91.67 91.67 2.08 2.08 2.08 2.08 80.85 78.72 17.02 21.28 1.02 1.02

Maramures 94.92 89.83 3.39 3.39 0 0 87.93 80.70 12.07 19.30 1.02 1.04

North‐West 84.11 80.13 11.26 11.26 1.32 1.99 78.87 70.92 19.01 26.95 1.06 1.07

Alba 90.91 87.88 0 0 6.06 6.06 75.00 68.75 21.88 25.00 1.03 1.03

Brasov 91.53 89.83 2.54 3.39 4.24 4.24 74.58 66.07 25.42 33.93 1 1.05

Covasna 92.86 92.86 7.14 7.14 0 0 85.71 71.43 14.29 28.57 1 1

Harghita 93.00 86.87 2.00 2.02 1.00 0 86.00 76.77 12.00 23.33 1 1

Mures 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 1 0

Sibiu 76.92 76.92 3.85 3.85 11.54 7.69 54.17 60.87 33.33 30.43 1.08 1.13

Center 89.58 87.96 2.60 3.14 5.21 4.71 73.02 66.30 24.87 31.49 1.02 1.06

Macroregion1 87.17 84.50 6.14 6.73 3.50 3.51 75.53 68.32 22.36 29.50 1.04 1.06

Bacau 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 1 1

Neamt 68.57 68.57 11.43 11.43 8.57 5.71 50.00 46.67 43.33 46.67 1.17 1.17

Suceava 89.06 79.69 0 0 6.25 4.69 65.57 59.02 34.43 40.98 1.05 1.05

North‐East 81.00 75.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 5.00 59.78 54.35 38.04 43.48 1.09 1.09

Braila 14.29 14.29 71.43 71.73 0 0 0 0 40.00 60.00 1.40 1.40

Buzau 41.67 33.33 16.67 16.67 8.33 16.67 27.27 18.18 45.45 54.55 1.09 1.09

Constanta 17.39 17.19 10.87 15.63 43.48 35.94 33.33 23.53 61.11 68.63 1.70 1.25

Tulcea 32.61 31.11 6.52 4.44 45.65 51.11 21.74 17.39 65.22 73.91 2 1.96

Vrancea 77.78 66.67 11.11 11.11 0 0 50.00 37.50 37.50 50.00 1.13 1.13

South‐East 37.84 34.25 14.86 13.70 29.73 34.25 25.53 19.15 53.19 63.83 1.57 1.55

Macroregion2 62.64 67.80 8.62 8.09 16.67 17.34 48.20 42.45 43.17 50.39 1.25 1.24

Arges 70.97 60.00 12.90 20.00 3.23 3.33 44.83 36.67 34.48 43.33 1.07 1


95


Survivoraccommodations Owners/operators Accommodationunitsperowner/

operator

(ratio)

Pensions(%)

Hotels(%)

Villas(%)

Individualenterprises

(%)

LLCs(%)

2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016 2005 2016

Dambovita 28.57 28.57 42.86 42.86 0 0 0 0 71.43 85.71 1 1

Prahova 52.94 52.94 17.65 11.76 0 5.88 62.50 52.94 25.00 41.18 1.06 1

South‐Muntenia

60.00 53.70 18.18 18.52 1.82 3.70 44.23 37.04 36.54 48.15 1.06 1

Macroregion3 60.00 53.70 18.18 18.52 1.82 3.70 44.23 37.04 36.54 48.15 1.06 1

Arad 14.29 14.29 57.14 57.14 14.29 14.29 14.29 14.29 57.14 85.71 1 1

Caras‐Severin

60.00 60.00 0 0 10.00 10.00 50.00 37.50 37.50 62.50 1.25 1.25

Hundeoara 100 100 0 0 0 0 50.00 25.00 50.00 75.00 1 1

Timis 33.33 33.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.00 100 1.50 1.50

West 50.00 50.00 16.67 16.67 8.33 8.33 33.33 23.81 47.62 76.19 1.14 1.14

Gorj 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 1 1

Mehedinti 100 100 0 0 0 0 50.00 0 50.00 100 1 2

Valcea 73.33 73.33 20.00 20.00 0 0 53.85 46.15 38.46 53.85 1.15 1.15

South‐West 77.78 77.78 16.67 16.67 0 0 50.00 40.00 43.75 60.00 1.13 1.20

Macroregion4 61.90 61.90 16.67 16.67 4.76 4.76 40.54 30.56 45.95 69.44 1.14 1.17

Nationallevel(rural)

76.06 72.67 8.79 8.84 7.17 7.53 63.51 56.26 30.41 39.20 1.10 1.11

ofwhich


32.37 28.06 20.14 20.14 29.50 17.99 48.91 37.08 44.57 56.18 1.51 1.56


79.27 76.02 9.35 9.35 5.28 4.88 65.38 55.51 29.49 41.41 1.05 1.08

WHS 61.96 58.24 3.26 2.20 25.00 27.47 62.12 53.85 33.33 43.08 1.39 1.40

Otherlocalities

85.80 81.16 2.72 2.13 3.63 3.95 65.02 60.87 23.84 30.12 1.02 1.02



96

Appendix5:ThemaprepresentingthecountiesandtheregionsofRomania

(Source:https://gandeste.org/wp‐content/uploads/2013/05/

regiuni‐de‐dezvoltare‐si‐judete‐300x212.jpg)

NEGOTIA - Babeș-Bolyai Universitystudia.ubbcluj.ro/download/pdf/1117.pdfAssoc. Prof. dr. OANA...

Documents

Transcript of NEGOTIA - Babeș-Bolyai Universitystudia.ubbcluj.ro/download/pdf/1117.pdfAssoc. Prof. dr. OANA...