Who gains more from networking? A comparative study of Polish exporting and non-exporting SMEs

	Sample characteristics	Exporters		Non-exporters		Total
	Sample characteristics	No. of companies	% of the sample	No. of companies	% of the sample	No. of companies	% of the sample
No. of employees	10–49	63	26%	97	40	160	67
50–249	57	24%	23	10	80	33
Annual sales volume	0–2 million Eur	53	22%	88	37	141	59
Annual sales volume	2–10 million Eur	47	20%	23	10	70	29
10–50 million Eur	20	8%	9	4	29	12
Type of market	B2B	37	15%	24	10	61	25
Type of market	Both B2B and B2C	50	21%	56	23	106	44
B2C	33	14%	40	17	73	30

[i] Note: B2B, business-to-business; B2C, business-to-consumer.

[ii] Source: Own study.

Table 2

The perceived importance of foreign network partners in achieving market success

Type of partner	Non-exporters (n = 20)		Exporters (n = 120)		Overall (N = 240)
Type of partner	Average	Standard deviation	Average	Standard deviation	Average	Standard deviation
Direct competitors	3.09^*	1,820	4.97^*	1.685	4.03	1.986
Indirect competitors	3.04^*	1.784	4.44^*	1.560	3.74	1.813
Customers	2.99^*	1.747	5.38^*	1.427	4.19	1.992
Suppliers	3.04^*	1.727	4.78^*	1,885	3.91	2.002
Intermediaries	2.94^*	1.667	4.21^*	2.016	3.58	1.952
Research institutions	2.78	1.589	2.88	1.818	2.83	1.704
State and local governmental institutions	2.83	1.647	2.78	1,826	2.80	1.735
Trade associations	2.87	1.660	2.77	1.823	2.82	1.740
Family	2.86	1.687	2.92	1.973	2.89	1.832
Friends	2.87	1.690	2.85	1.930	2.86	1.810
Colleagues	2.88	1.693	2.86	1.920	2.87	1.806

Notes: Scale: “1” – not important at all to “7”-very important.

* Significant differences in the evaluation of the importance of foreign partners between exporters and non-exporters (t-test for independent samples).

Source: Own study.

Table 3

The perceived importance of domestic network partners in achieving market success

	Non-exporters (n = 120)		Exporters (n = 120)		Overall (N =240)
	Average	Standard deviation	Average	Standard deviation	Average	Standard deviation
Direct competitors	4.71	1.637	4.86	1.667	4.78	1.650
Indirect competitors	4.24	1.501	4.28	1.641	4.26	1.569
Customers	5.41	1.381	5.36	1.538	5.38	1.459
Suppliers	5.08	1.524	5.33	1.490	5.20	1.509
Intermediaries	4.15	1.943	4.56	1,882	4.35	1.920
Research institutions	3.25	1.893	3.30	1.964	3.28	1.925
State and local governmental institutions	2.95	1.772	3.22	1,879	3.08	1.828
Trade associations	3.06	1.812	3.03	1,863	3.04	1.834
Family	3.79	1.995	3.60	2.072	3.70	2.032
Friends	3.61	1.946	3.50	2.021	3.55	1.980
Colleagues	3.64	1.939	3.52	1.996	3.58	1.965

[i] Note: Scale: “1” – not important at all to “7” very important.

[ii] Source: Own study.

Table 4

Correlations between the importance of domestic and foreign partners and the paired-samples t-test results for exporters

Type of partner: domestic vs. foreign	Correlations for dependent samples		Paired differences					t	df	Sig. (two-sided)
	Correlation	Sig.	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error of the mean	95% confidence interval of the difference
	Correlation	Sig.	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. error of the mean	Lower	Upper
Direct competitors	0.357	0.000	−0.108	1.900	0.173	−0.452	0.235	−0.625	119	0.533
Indirect competitors	0.496	0.000	−0.158	1.609	0.147	−0.449	0.132	−1.078	119	0.283
Customers	0.477	0.000	−0.025	1.520	0.139	−0.300	0.250	−0.180	119	0.857
Suppliers	0.418	0.000	0.550	1.851	0.169	0.215	0.885	3.255	119	0.001
Intermediaries	0.582	0.000	0.350	1.785	0.163	0.027	0.673	2.148	119	0.034
Research institutions	0.512	0.000	0.425	1.873	0.171	0.086	0.764	2.486	119	0.014
State and local governmental institutions	0.560	0.000	0.442	1.738	0.159	0.127	0.756	2.783	119	0.006
Trade associations	0.658	0.000	0.258	1.526	0.139	−0.017	0.534	1.855	119	0.066
Family	0.629	0.000	0.683	1.744	0.159	0.368	0.999	4.292	119	0.000
Friends	0.674	0.000	0.650	1.596	0.146	0.361	0.939	4.460	119	0.000
Colleagues	0.662	0.000	0.658	1.611	0.147	0.367	0.950	4.475	119	0.000

[i] Note: df, degrees of freedom; sig., significance; std., standard.

[ii] Source: Own study.

Table 5

Correlations between the importance of domestic and foreign partners and the paired-samples t-test results for non exporters

Type of partner: domestic vs. foreign	Correlations for dependent samples		Paired differences					t	df	Sig. (two-sided)
	Correlation	Sig.	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. Error Mean	95% confidence interval of the difference
	Correlation	Sig.	Mean	Std. deviation	Std. Error Mean	Lower	Upper
Direct competitors	0.382	0.000	10.617	1.928	0.176	1.268	1.965	9.185	119	0.000
Indirect competitors	0.555	0.000	1.200	1.570	0.143	0.916	1.484	8.375	119	0.000
Customers	0.075	0.418	2.417	2.144	0.196	2.029	2.804	12.346	119	0.000
Suppliers	0.302	0.001	2.033	1.927	0.176	1.685	2.382	11.559	119	0.000
Intermediaries	0.506	0.000	1.208	1.810	0.165	0.881	1.535	7.314	119	0.000
Research institutions	0.429	0.000	0.467	1.878	0.171	0.127	0.806	2.722	119	0.007
State and local	0.504	0.000	0.117	1.706	0.156	−0.192	0.425	0.749	119	0.455
governmental
institutions
Trade associations	0.461	0.000	0.192	1.807	0.165	−0.135	0.518	1.162	119	0.248
Family	0.261	0.004	0.933	2.252	0.206	0.526	1.340	4.540	119	0.000
Friends	0.401	0.000	0.742	2.002	0.183	0.380	1.104	4.058	119	0.000
Colleagues	0.403	0.000	0.767	1.995	0.182	0.406	1.127	4.210	119	0.000

[i] Note: df, degrees of freedom; sig., significance; std., standard.

[ii] Source: Own study.

Table 6

The perceived significance of the cooperation benefits for the market success

	Non-exporters (n = 120)		Exporters (n = 120)		Overall (N = 240)
	Average	Standard deviation	Average	Standard deviation	Average	Standard deviation
Improving image	5.63^*	1.409	6.25^*	0.964	5.94	1.244
Organizing supplies (parts, raw materials)	5.38^*	1.421	5.74^*	1.381	5.56	1.410
Gathering information on clients’ needs	4.99^*	1.531	5.69^*	1.333	5.34	1.475
Organizing sales and distribution	4.83^*	1.648	5.80^*	1.234	5.31	1.533
Gathering information on potential markets (e.g., market trends, number of clients)	4.81^*	1.573	5.63^*	1.402	5.22	1.543
Organizing promotional activities	4.67^*	1.662	5.45^*	1.608	5.06	1.678
Innovation development	4.37^*	1.847	5.47^*	1.577	4.92	1.800
Acquiring resources (financial and other)	4.03^*	1.801	4.74^*	1.678	4.39	1.773

Notes: Scale: “1”- not significant at all; “7”- very significant.

* Significant differences in the evaluation of cooperation benefits between exporters and non-exporters (t-test for independent samples)

Source: Own study.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2022-0008 | Journal eISSN: 2543-5361 (formerly 2299-9701) | Journal ISSN: 2299-9701

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 64 - 79

Submitted on: Apr 8, 2021

Accepted on: Mar 31, 2022

Published on: Mar 31, 2022

Published by: SGH Warsaw School of Economics

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

Keywords:

exporters,

networking,

Poland,

SMEs

JEL:

M16,

F23

Related subjects:

Business and economics,

Business management,

Management accounting, financial controlling, cost calculation, investment

© 2022 Lidia Danik, Dominika Mirońska, published by SGH Warsaw School of Economics
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Volume 58 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022)